Response to interpellation 2025/26:317 on improved environmental control of vehicles
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns improved environmental control on vehicles and particle measurement. KD considers it important to establish legally secure and quality-assured methods jointly within the EU 1. KD argues that a common solution provides similar competitive conditions and strengthens the internal market 2. KD emphasizes that measurement methods must be able to be applied in a legally secure manner in a colder climate to avoid unnecessary costs for vehicle owners 2. KD argues that Sweden should not go ahead in order to avoid new legislative work 3. KD wants to avoid over-implementation and focus on a predictable solution at the EU level 3. KD considers it important to achieve the solution through common EU regulations that do not create concern for different applications depending on climate 4. KD thinks that it should not be introduced with different levels in different countries as it becomes unmanageable for the individual and for the business community 4. KD considers it unwise to risk costs for individual vehicle owners since many families with children are dependent on the car 4. KD wants Sweden to be constructive at the EU level 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Jytte Guteland has asked me if I intend to return with proposals on how environmental controls on vehicles can be improved so that Sweden does not have lower requirements than other EU countries.
I have in previous interpellation debates with Jytte Guteland accounted for how I view environmental controls during inspection. I have accounted for that certain new national rules are already on the way to make the environmental control more purposeful in connection with the fact that Transportstyrelsen's inspection regulations are to be updated during the year. For example, an expanded environmental control of buses and heavy trucks is included in that work.
In addition, revised inspection rules are currently being negotiated within the EU. At the latest transport council in December, I participated and gave support to the council's general guideline, an important step to move forward in the negotiations, which, by the way, have proceeded very quickly.
In the proposal for amended rules, there is, among other things, the introduction of a new method for particle measurement with different requirements depending on the vehicle's age. It is reasonable and good that a new method for particle measurement is regulated jointly within the EU. New methods that affect many car owners must be legally secure and properly quality-assured before they are introduced, not least against the background that we are a country with at times a very cold climate which can affect the conditions for certain control methods.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Infrastructure, for the answer and for the fact that we can have this debate today!
Air pollution from traffic causes thousands of people's deaths in Sweden and millions globally. The zero vision in traffic targets traffic accidents, but the fact is that significantly more people die traffic-related if one counts diseases resulting from pollution.
Nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debra in London, who died in an asthma attack in 2013, was the first to have the officially established cause of death as air pollution. The legal investigation showed that the very busy road she lived by had contributed to her death.
At the beginning of the year, 1,182 healthcare and medical professionals in Sweden wrote in Aftonbladet that they demand action for health and climate. They were thus targeting air pollution and how many people die because of it, both in Sweden and globally.
In the newspaper Vi Bilägare, the inspection manager at Bilprovningen wrote on January 22 this year that with today's measurement method, cars with significantly increased emissions are passing through. They also wrote: We do not distrust the car owners, but we want to perform a relevant environmental check so that the cars do not emit more particles than necessary.
I can imagine that the Minister agrees that it is reasonable. Particle measurement on diesel cars has already been introduced in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The measurement has led to more cars with too high emissions being detected, especially diesel cars.
The Infrastructure Minister's own party, Kristdemokraterna, already wrote the following in their committee motion in 2021: "The Government should return with proposals on how environmental control on vehicles can be improved so that Sweden does not have significantly lower requirements for environmental control of vehicles than other European countries."
I am now receiving the answer, both in writing and orally, that things are moving very quickly in the negotiations at the EU level, but can the Minister specify what is very quick? When will it be in place in national implementation? Is it 2029 or 2030? Regardless, it will be four or five years later than it would have been if Sweden had followed the EU Commission's proposal and recommendation on particle measurement. Health is actually being sacrificed in favor of a very vague line from the authority.
We belong to the countries that have the lowest requirements in the EU regarding this, something that the minister's own party has criticized. My question to the minister is: What is fast? When will we have rules in place that protect life and health when it comes to particle measurement and air pollution from cars?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Jytte Guteland for her commitment. This is not the first time we have debated this issue. My view is that we need to move forward as quickly as possible. It was important that a general guideline was reached at the council meeting.
It is important to establish an implementation that is as similar as possible. In the countries that have introduced measurement and which the member mentioned – Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany – we see that it differs and that they apply different limit values and rules.
The strength of getting it in place jointly within the EU is that there will be fewer particulate emissions by acting on a broad front within the union, that there will be similar competitive conditions, that it will be easier to follow, and that it strengthens the internal market while the emissions of particles can decrease.
This is not an area that is unregulated in Sweden. For a long time, emissions have been measured during inspection through so-called opacity measurement of particle emissions and also, in occurring cases, through control of the OBD system, that is, the vehicle's own monitoring system to identify faults in the exhaust cleaning's function.
As the member was in, that is why we are discussing this at the EU level. The existing method does not capture all modern vehicles, and therefore it is important with improved methods, which we now want to get forward as quickly as possible.
I want to emphasize that in the EU Commission's proposal for new inspection rules within the EU, there are requirements for particle measurement. New methods for measuring nitrogen oxides, so-called NOx, are also included in the proposal. It is important that these methods become common within the union.
As I said, it is also important to ensure that the requirements being introduced are based on sufficient knowledge of how tests and measurements function in, for example, countries with colder climates. All forms of exhaust pipe tests are sensitive to the vehicle's warming up before the test. Tests during winter time can become legally uncertain if there are no clear and verified methods to be able to perform the tests in a legally secure manner.
A car that is approved in southern Europe, where it is warmer, might not be approved in Sweden, which has a colder climate. I do not believe that either the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats, or the government want to see that lack of legal certainty. If we do not ensure that the measurement methods can be applied with legal certainty in a cold climate, there is an obvious risk that vehicles will fail without the vehicle owners being able to do anything about it. It could cause large costs and hassle for ordinary people without us achieving the collective effect of reduced particle emissions at the EU level.
We see that the countries that have introduced measurements have changed methods along the way. That is why it is necessary to find a common regulatory framework and an application as quickly as possible that allows us to address the problem that both Jytte Guteland and I want to solve, without creating other problems that cause someone driving a car approved in one part of Europe to not be approved here in Sweden just because we happen to have a colder climate. I do not believe that is a desired way forward.
I believe the member understands the complexity of this, but there is no inherent value in it taking unnecessarily long. On the contrary, it needs to be implemented as quickly as possible.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister once again for clarifying the arguments and for how the Minister and the Government reason.
I would still like to say that so far I am not satisfied with how the Minister handles this important issue. I would like to see a more forward-looking attitude. I want to emphasize once again that it is about people's lives.
I am convinced that we share the insight that we must eliminate air pollution, but I still want to point out how serious it is. In a public debate, questions sometimes disappear that are not immediately visible but which affect us people very much in our everyday lives.
An accident that occurs quickly and drastically receives very great attention, rightly so, but this is about issues concerning all our lives in the longer term. In that regard, certain groups are extra vulnerable – I am thinking of pregnant women, fetuses, babies and the young, but also the elderly and the sick. There we know that air pollutants are life-threatening. We now have legal examples of this. We also know from what doctors say that air pollutants are at times just as harmful as smoking for our lungs, for example if we live negatively in relation to a road.
We have also seen a huge outcry in one of our largest newspapers just recently, where healthcare personnel describe that they want a powerful action plan when it comes to air pollution.
Given all this, Sweden needs to speed up much more. I hear arguments from the Minister that things are happening quickly at the EU level and that we should therefore have a harmonized approach and not proceed alone. That may sound proactive, but both the Minister and I are aware that these processes can take a very long time. Therefore, I am honestly curious about what the Minister thinks regarding the timing. Is it one, two, or three years left before we can get this in place at the EU level? What is very fast in this context?
We are also told that Sweden has a very cold climate and that we would therefore land differently than other countries that are warmer.
Firstly, other European countries also have harsh winters and cold climates. I am thinking of Germany. Of course, they also measure at low temperatures there.
Secondly, we hear that the automotive industry itself, but also Bilprovningen, are very clear that this can be done in a satisfactory way. They are convinced that there is good technology available.
A man also points out that it is not about all cars. It is not about your car, you out there listening to this debate, but it is about cars that are damaged or manipulated. If it is manipulated, one probably has a slight idea of it, and if it is damaged, one wants to know that. It is about people who need to be told that their cars emit significantly more than all others.
All signs from the countries that have introduced this at the EU level show that they think it works well. It is good information and consumer education, also for the car owners, so why doesn't Sweden want to lead the way?
I have two questions: How fast will it go at the EU level, and why does Sweden not want to lead the way here? I do not think I am getting satisfactory answers.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would gladly answer the first question if I had full command over it. But it is well known to Jytte Guteland, who has more insight into the EU process than many others in the chamber of the Riksdag, that it is simply not possible to stand here today and say exactly when this can be in place. I wish I could do that, but I cannot provide an answer to the first question.
The second question was why Sweden does not want to go first. It is precisely because the three countries that have introduced this have had different types of problems in the beginning that they have had to manage. Different limit values and rules are applied in the different countries, and there is no single clear picture of the way forward.
At the same time, we now have a process at the EU level where this will be handled. If Sweden were to undertake its own extensive legislative work that takes precedence, there is a risk that we would need to redo that work once the process has been completed. For Sweden, it is important that we obtain reasonable conditions at the EU level with clear and distinct guidelines for the implementation of the regulatory framework, not least since the change risks becoming a financial issue for individual vehicle owners.
It may be that there are other countries that have a cold climate, but we often have harsher winters than many other EU countries. That there is then no clarity regarding what it could mean for individual vehicle owners should be sufficient to not proceed before we have a common impact assessment but also a common EU regulatory framework.
There is occasionally a discussion about gold-plating, i.e., over-implementation of EU legislation, and not placing more costs on individuals and companies in Sweden than can be done at the EU level. Therefore, we have focused on achieving the best possible solution at the EU level, and even though I cannot say exactly when it will be in place today, Sweden is contributing constructively to that work and will continue to do so to reduce particulate emissions but also to obtain methods that are the same throughout the union and do not become a flora of different implementations, as we have seen in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, which have introduced different methods. If anything, that illustrates that we need to achieve a common regulatory framework so that it becomes predictable throughout the union.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you once again to the Minister for Infrastructure for this debate in the chamber!
I want to start by saying that I am concerned that Sweden does not want to take the lead. I wish that the Minister and the government would rethink that issue and see all the arguments for being faster, because we know that EU processes often take a long time.
When it comes to the risk that Sweden would need to adjust or change the regulatory framework later, it must be weighed against what it could mean for people living along very busy roads or near such a manipulated or broken car that emits incredibly much more than all other cars.
We have good examples, both from Bilprovningen and from other countries, which show the will to do the job. In practice, those who have worked with it have shown that it is possible. It is possible to find the damaged and manipulated cars and thereby reduce air pollution to a significant extent.
The Minister and I agree that air pollution is a major global problem but also a problem that exists in all cities, even in our Sweden. The people who are affected are often already vulnerable in one way or another by being pregnant, being small, or being elderly and ill. But that makes it even more important that we protect these people from the harmful effects that air pollution entails.
My hope is that this debate will help the Minister to rethink and take the lead on this issue.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Jytte Guteland for the debate and for highlighting an important issue.
We can reduce the emissions of particles. There, the ambition is common. Then the methods and the speed may differ; I note that in this debate. But it is not about a lower level of ambition from the government's side.
It is about us getting this done on as broad a front as possible with common EU regulations that do not create concern for different applications depending on climate, weather, and cold. Nor should this be introduced with different levels in different countries so that it becomes unmanageable for the individual and for the business community; instead, we must, with common efforts, establish an EU regulatory framework that is balanced and ambitious but which does not risk involving costs for individual vehicle owners in Sweden. I believe we agree that it would be unwise to risk that, given that many families with children are dependent on the car in their everyday lives.
Sweden should not create unrest by going ahead when the EU is far ahead in the work that is now in place, at least with the general guideline that the Council has decided on based on the Commission's proposal. There, Sweden will continue to be constructive so that we can achieve a solution that is as broad and good as possible at the EU level. But thank you for this debate today!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.