Response to interpellation 2025/26:356 on transport services and the government's continued preparation of the Trafikanalys proposal
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 government is following the issue closely and that Transportstyrelsen's assignment is important to identify differences in application 1. KD emphasizes that no law prevents municipalities and regions from a more generous application and that the responsibility lies with the primary authorities 1 2. KD argues that the pandemic may have affected the number of permits and that a basis is needed for better guidelines 2. KD argues that the responsibility for granting permits lies at the local and regional level and that it is the primary authorities who should be responsible for interpretations 3 4. KD emphasizes that Transportstyrelsen is investigating criteria for demanding accountability 3 4. S considers that the government chooses not to act despite the system not working 5 6. S argues that the government prioritizes other issues and that the preparation is a political argument for not acting 6. S emphasizes that the differences in the country are a matter of legal certainty 7. S considers that the government's sluggish machinery has led to waste and that blind people are forced to appeal decisions 7. S argues that there is a systemic error because the legislation does not ensure equality or drive generous interpretations, which means that rights depend on the municipalities' goodwill 8.
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! Azra Muranovic has asked me how I and the government justify the need for a new investigation when Trafikanalys has already submitted proposals on clarified criteria. She has also asked when I and the government intend to present concrete legislative proposals based on the conclusions that have already been reported, and how I and the government ensure that persons with extensive visual impairments are not affected by unequal and legally uncertain application of the Transport Services Act in the meantime.
I have previously answered questions and interpellations on the same theme. As recently as March 20, I answered a virtually identical question from a party colleague to Azra Muranovic in an interpellation debate. I can assure Azra Muranovic that the issue of special transport services is important for the government and that I continue to follow it closely.
As I have explained in previous answers to Members of Parliament, the assignment to Transportstyrelsen constitutes an important basis in the further preparation of the report from Trafikanalys. The assignment aims to identify differences in application between the different licensing authorities.
No change has been made to the framework law, the Act (1997:736) on transport services, which regulates the right to transport services. Responsible authorities, in the form of municipalities or regional public transport authorities, should themselves answer why they make the interpretation that, for example, persons with extensive visual impairment do not meet the disabilities that entail that permission for transport services should be granted according to the Transport Services Act. The law does not set up any obstacle to a more generous application than what occurs in several places in the country.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
I want to talk about what it is actually like to live with a visual impairment and the legislation we have in Sweden today. When I meet people, they tell me that it is very difficult to read a bus timetable, that it is difficult to see when the bus is coming, and that it is almost impossible to run to a stop when the bus is not waiting. We know that public transport often does not work for those who cannot see.
If the bus does not wait, if transfers do not work and if the information is not available, the transport service becomes the only reasonable complement. Without it, it becomes very difficult to live, act and work in Swedish society.
When I meet these people, it is not one or two who express this. It is several people with visual impairments who tell about similar things. This is a pattern. People end up caught between the municipality and the region, between transport services and escort services. What happens is that we point at each other regarding whose responsibility it actually is to interpret the legislation.
Actually, it is very simple. These people are not asking for much. They should be able to get to work, and their everyday lives should function. That is all.
Madam Speaker! The serious point in the interpellation is that we do not need to guess about this. Traffic analysis has already shown that the application of the transport service has drifted away from the intentions of the law. On many pages in the investigation, the development of case law and application is analyzed. It therefore shows what the application actually looks like in the municipalities. There is extensive supporting material for this. There is statistics, and there is analysis. And the conclusion is clear: The system does not work as intended.
Despite this, the government chooses not to act. They choose to investigate further. This is where the political question arises. When one knows that there are people today who are denied transport services despite extensive needs, and when one knows that the application does not follow the intentions of the law, but still abstains from submitting a proposal, I believe it is no longer a question of knowledge. It is beginning to become a question of political will.
The Minister says that he takes this seriously. If one takes seriously that people are losing opportunities to live, act, and work in a society, one acts. One does not keep a group of people in an unjust situation year after year by referring to the fact that the issue is being prepared.
Therefore, my question to the Minister is very simple: How long does the government consider that people with visual impairments should have to live with a system that one knows does not work before moving from investigation to actual action?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! Recently, I have met the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired in Uppsala and their chairman here in the Riksdag. During these meetings, I received important messages, which I wish to convey in today's debate and to the Minister.
The transport service is one of the most important individual support measures for people with disabilities to be able to move in and participate in society like others and for them to be able to work, study or perform chores in everyday life.
Unfortunately, that is not the case today. One reason is, as mentioned earlier, that the law is being applied ever more strictly, which means that fewer and fewer people receive transport service permits. This is not due to changed legislation but to changed case law, which different authorities rely on to varying degrees. It also differs very greatly between different parts of the country. Common quality requirements for transport services are lacking. This leads to the fact that transport services can be used differently depending on where in Sweden one happens to live. This is serious. It has gone so far that people have lost their jobs because of the development.
The Minister has stated that this is unfortunate, and I truly agree with that. But when one, as a minister, sees a development one is not satisfied with, it is a matter of taking action. The problem, as said, could have been remedied if the proposals submitted by Trafikanalys in the spring of 2023 had been put into practice – tomorrow, I believe, it will be exactly three years since then. Trafikanalys concluded that the legislation is deficient and that clarifications are needed regarding which criteria should apply for travel services (färdtjänst). This has also been pointed out by several affected associations, including Synskadades Riksförbund, whose members are affected by this issue – many are hit hard.
But Trafikanalys' proposal can lie and gather dust in a desk drawer. The government claims that more mapping is needed. That mapping could perhaps have been carried out earlier in that case. Instead, the government is dragging this out and awaiting an answer in January 2027, that is, after the election. Many affected feel that things that are already known are being investigated. Time passes while more and more people are affected. Some are deprived of the transport service they have had for most of their lives.
What is the government waiting for? Last Friday, the Minister stated that new figures are needed – the statistics have become obsolete, and that is what can be expected as the years go by. However, there are questions that the government has answered much faster. We are going to open the Riksdag this summer to prepare questions concerning justice policy and migration policy. We do not usually do that. Summer is actually intended for election campaigning, but these products are submitted after the proposal deadline. This does not apply, however, to the issue of transport services. It is strange that one manages to complete several propositions, including on serving licenses, but does not manage to produce supplementary documentation to ensure the legal certainty of the assessment of transport services. That takes many years, and the feeling is, of course, that it is not a priority issue for the government.
My questions to the Minister are therefore: What does the Minister want to say to the person who has lost their travel service? Does the Minister intend to do anything to stop this development before January 2027?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! First, I would like to thank both Azra Muranovic and Sanne Lennström for their commitment. I view the developments in different parts of the country seriously.
The background to the assignment that the government has decided to give the Transport Agency is not just that the years have passed, as the member said. An important circumstance is that Trafikanalys' report was made during the pandemic and presented shortly thereafter. I have reviewed Trafikanalys' own statistics that came after they submitted the report that the members refer to. There I have noted that the number of paratransit permits per inhabitant in 2024 was at approximately the same level as before the pandemic. There was a visible decline in the number of both permits and paratransit trips during the pandemic. It cannot be ruled out that the pandemic has had an impact and effect that caused the decline in the country. Since then, the permits per inhabitant have increased in many places.
It is in the preparation of the Trafikanalys report that we have been able to establish that there are differences between different parts of the country. In Örebro County, where the Christian Democrats are part of the government, the number of transport service permits per inhabitant has increased by 24 percent compared to before the pandemic. At the same time, the transport service permits per inhabitant have decreased by over 16 percent in Kronoberg County. It is therefore obvious that there are differences across Sweden. That is why the government has tasked the Transport Agency with investigating the differences in which criteria are applied during permit granting: so that there will be a basis and support for municipalities' and regions' analyses of how they can produce better guidelines for decisions, so that everyone who is entitled to transport service also receives it.
Madam Speaker! Just as I said in my interpellation answer, there is today nothing in the current legislation that prevents municipalities and regions from being more generous in their application. Azra Muranovic asks how long it will take. The answer is that it does not need to take any longer than until the region or the municipality makes a decision to be more generous. That possibility already exists today, and that is primarily where the responsibility lies. But in order to obtain a better basis and to map out what the differences look like in Sweden today, Transportstyrelsen has been given this very important assignment.
With that, Madam Speaker, I believe I have also answered some of Sanne Lennström's questions.
I cannot comment on individual cases and stories about people not receiving transport services even though they have obvious problems moving around on their own. It is the authorities themselves who must answer questions about the decisions they have made, as I also said in my interpellation response. How certain responsible heads of agencies can make the interpretation that, for example, people with visual impairments do not face disabilities that involve significant difficulties moving around on their own can only be answered by those heads of agencies themselves. I am not satisfied with the situation, but we need a better basis that clarifies the differences in the country in order to be able to take the correct measures.
Madam Speaker! The most important measure can, however, be taken by the local authorities themselves already today. Again: There is nothing that prevents a more generous application. I can imagine that this will prompt questions locally and regionally in the different parts of the country where the permits have decreased. One can certainly learn from, for example, Örebro län, where the transport service permits have increased per inhabitant after the pandemic and onwards.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Madam Speaker! I think it is becoming very clear what this debate is about – not about data, analysis and preparation, but about political will. When the government says that the transport service must be further investigated, one must put that in relation to how the government acts in other issues. There we see something completely different.
When the government changes the cash register and worsens things for people, it is possible to make decisions without referring to everything that must be investigated for several years. When the government pushes forward proposals on reporting laws, it is prepared to proceed despite extensive criticism and major question marks regarding the consequences. When the government proposes changes to the high-cost protection, no preparation process is highlighted as an obstacle. When the government shifts the aid, it is possible to make decisions quickly, even though the consequences become dramatic and far-reaching.
The pattern is clear when one looks at this government. When it wants to make a decision, it does so. Then, the preparation time is not a problem, referral criticism is not an obstacle, and further investigations are not necessary, regardless of what others say. But in this issue, where there is a chance to strengthen the rights for persons with visual impairments, suddenly the preparation becomes decisive. Then we must know more and investigate more, even though the issue is already well-investigated – the underlying material that exists is not sufficient.
Madam Speaker! This is exactly the core of the matter. We know that the evidence exists. Trafikanalys has already analyzed case law, pointed out differences in application, and concluded that the law is not functioning as intended. This is not actually a question where the government lacks knowledge. It is a question where the government chooses not to act on the knowledge that already exists. In that case, the preparation is not a technical argument but a political argument – a way to justify doing nothing.
Madam Speaker! That is why it is difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning. The same government does not hesitate to move forward quickly in other matters. But here, where one can solve a clear structural problem, one chooses to wait. It is not caution that shines through, but rather a lack of prioritization. Let us be honest: This debate is not about the government being unable to act based on the information it has, but about the government not wanting to act.
But if it is indeed the case that there is a lack of underlying material: What exactly is it that the Minister and the Government need to know beyond what Trafikanalys has already investigated regarding the application of the law?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister mentions that there are large differences in the country regarding the assessment. That is precisely what the debate is about. It is a question of legal certainty.
It is not okay that people living in Skåne are hit extra hard by harsh assessments and that they should lose the opportunity to, for example, get to work or accompany their children to an extracurricular activity.
It results in an isolation and an exclusion, all while three years have passed. One cannot help but ask the question: Could what the Minister is requesting not have been investigated during these three years that have passed? Could one not have reviewed the supplementation then?
In addition to the waste of time, there is another waste that the government's sluggish machinery has also led to. The Administrative Court is overwhelmed with resources that are rolling. At the same time, for example, blind people are forced to be dragged into appeals against decisions regarding something that we in this room seem to agree that they actually have a right to.
It is high time to make Trafikanalys' proposals a reality. If I am to work extra here in the Riksdag in August, my last summer as a member, I would very much like to have handled a product that has led to better quality in the transport service throughout the country.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! What the Transport Agency is now going to look at is the differences in which criteria are applied when granting permits. This is against the background that a number of things have happened since Trafikanalys submitted its report.
I accounted for some differences in the country where it has increased in some places and decreased in others. It is obviously important that accountability is demanded where the responsibility lies at the local and regional level. I believe there is much to learn from the regions where it has been more generous.
With that, Madam Speaker, I cannot help but go back to what I have previously said one and two times in this chamber. How certain principals can make the interpretation that, for example, persons with visual impairments would not encounter functional impairments involving significant difficulties in moving independently can only be answered by the responsible principals themselves.
What the Transport Agency is now tasked to investigate are the criteria that are applied so that we get a better basis for holding the authorities that have the responsibility accountable and a basis for the measures that need to be taken so that more people can receive the transport service that they are legally entitled to.
With that, I refer to previous answers. I discussed this question in the chamber as recently as ten days ago.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Madam Speaker! This question was discussed on March 20, and it is being discussed again today. The Minister actually returns with the same answer.
There is nothing in the legislation that prevents municipalities and regions from being more generous in their assessments. That is exactly the problem. The law allows for generosity in theory, but in reality, we see that the application is becoming increasingly narrower. It then becomes not a local problem but a systemic error.
Madam Speaker! There is nothing in the legislation today that ensures equality, and there is nothing that drives a more generous interpretation. There is nothing that prevents municipalities under economic pressure or with different practices from making all stricter assessments, instead it rests on their goodwill. It is precisely that which is the big problem.
Traffic analysis has already shown that the application has drifted away from the law's intentions. To say that the law allows for generosity is not enough when the system in practice leads to the opposite. We cannot have rights that are based on individual municipalities choosing to be generous and us highlighting them as good examples.
Rights must be clear, predictable and equal across the entire country. Otherwise, they are not rights. Then it is a geographical issue and a matter of generosity.
Therefore, my concluding question to the Minister is: When the application systematically becomes narrower, even though the law in theory allows for more, why does the government not consider it the legislation that needs to be changed, but instead refers the matter to the municipalities and the regions?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The answer to the question is that the responsibility today lies with municipalities and regions. If the Riksdag wants to change that, the Riksdag can make a decision on that, but the responsibility lies where the responsibility lies.
It looks different in different parts of the country, and the number of special transport permits has increased in several places. There was a visible decline during and after the pandemic, when Trafikanalys produced the report that is referred to. Against that background, there is reason to review this again.
It may be easy to blame someone else. But municipalities are governed by politically appointed municipal councils. In Kronoberg, which is located slightly south of the member's constituency, the transport service permits per inhabitant have decreased by over 16 percent. In Kronoberg, the Social Democrats are part of the governing body. Where responsibility can be taken, it should be taken already at the regional level. The Christian Democrats are part of the governing body in Örebro, where the transport service permits per inhabitant have increased by 24 percent.
It is precisely about the differences and that the number of transport service permits has increased from 2004 onwards. It is now at the same level as before the pandemic. That means we now need to have a more solid basis to be able to demand accountability so that those with visual impairments do not receive the notice that they do not have significant difficulties moving around on their own. Why it is so today can only the responsible heads of departments answer.
This is an urgent matter for the government. We take this seriously. That is why the Transport Agency has been given this important assignment.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.