Response to interpellation 2025/26:425 on the distribution of responsibility for infrastructure costs at defense establishments

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Kalle Olsson has asked me if I will act to clarify the distribution of responsibility for infrastructure costs between Trafikverket and other relevant actors, and if I will act to ensure that the state allocates the necessary resources to fund the upcoming infrastructural needs in connection with the defense establishments mentioned in the interpellation and future ones.

There is a clear division of responsibility – there are roads that are the state's responsibility and roads that are the municipalities' responsibility. Investments in new state infrastructure shall contribute to the transport policy goals being achieved and shall, as a rule, be socio-economically profitable. They are normally financed through state grants via the state budget.

The need for reconstructions, improvements, or other changes to the state infrastructure that arise when an external party wishes to connect to the state infrastructure, for example in the case of a development, shall normally be paid for by the developer. This is a principle that has been applied for a long time and which applies whether it is a private individual who wants to connect a newly built villa to the nearest public road or whether it is a larger industrial establishment or a state facility being built.

Regarding the examples of ongoing establishments that Kalle Olsson mentions, there are processes ongoing regarding these, in which Trafikverket is a party. I assume that Trafikverket and other public actors, in every case and also in these cases, act based on the principles applied in the planning of infrastructure and actively contribute to ensuring that the design of the transport infrastructure becomes purposeful.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer to my question!

There are assessors, including European intelligence services, who warn that if Putin, should Russia emerge strengthened from the war in Ukraine, could be ready within just a few years to move forward and attack other countries – think Poland and the Baltic states. What this would mean for Swedish security is, of course, obvious to everyone.

The defense buildup that we are now carrying out is therefore extremely important. It is particularly important that we move from words to action, that we convert the money into concrete defense capability. We here in the Riksdag and the government have agreed on massive investments, hundreds of billions, in new weapons systems, more conscripts, more officers, more regiments and, one might add, Mr. Speaker, also substantial roundels.

A strong society and a strong defense require both roads, sewers, and junctions with width and durability. This is what this interpellation is about in some sense: a roundabout in Östersund. What it is about a bit more specifically is the process that always precedes all types of establishments, which in this case involves Östersund Municipality, the Armed Forces, the Fortification Agency and, last but not least, the Transport Administration.

When, after the usual—you know—dialogue with citizens and consideration for peaceful forest orchids, beautiful butterflies and so on—one began to see that one was approaching the goal in this process, in the sense of an adopted detailed plan, Trafikverket enters the fray, and with a notice. Trafikverket demands that Östersund Municipality enter into a financing agreement with the authority. If one does not do so, Trafikverket threatens to appeal this detailed plan, which one has worked on for several years together with the Armed Forces and Fortifikationsverket. This could delay this establishment by several years.

I think that is something we can let sink in a little bit. We have, in practice, an authority that is obstructing another authority, which is engaged in a very pressing matter – to build up defense capability – and which has also been very clear towards the municipality in question, Östersund Municipality, that there is a hurry and that they want to see delivery and progress.

But then Trafikverket comes along, very unexpectedly and cheekily, one might say, and tries to shift the responsibility and the financial risk onto the municipality. Put it on paper here, otherwise nothing will happen. It is a staggering attitude.

This has now gone so far that the Armed Forces as recently as last week announced that they are considering another location for their establishment. One of the reasons for this is precisely the inability to find a solution regarding this traffic situation. It concerns several years of work that is now being thrown into the air and an establishment that may be pushed forward by several years, if one has to go as far as to work out a new detailed plan.

At the same time, there is a constant serious realization that it is urgent; there is danger in delay.

The Minister states here in his answer that he assumes that Trafikverket and all others are working based on the principles that apply. But then the simple question remains: Is it the Minister's opinion that this is how it should proceed? Has the state handled this properly in relation to Östersund Municipality? I naturally hope that the answer to that question from the Minister's side is no and that the Minister promptly gathers his government colleagues from the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Defence and ensures that this issue is resolved once and for all.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first just establish that the responsibility in Sweden is so distributed that it is Trafikverket that is responsible for this process. But we have a dialogue with the municipality and the authorities. I have met the municipal leadership in Östersund and representatives for the municipality. It is of course important that the parties involved find a common solution.

Trafikverket is responsible for the planning process, and I, as a government minister, can neither nor should I comment on such processes. It does not fall to an individual government minister to comment on individual cases, especially when Trafikverket is a party in a current case.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I naturally want to emphasize the importance of working with a common direction when it comes to increasing readiness and enabling defense expansion. In other parts of my department, we are working to shorten lead times and more quickly enable defense establishments. Every part of the buildup must, of course, occur expeditiously.

That is why I am glad that Kalle Olsson mentions such a thing as a roundabout. It is not in the big plans, the big words and the big sums that it is decided, but it is where the bottlenecks are. Therefore, I am keen that we get an even better order in the planning stage. It is no surprise that it is Trafikverket that is responsible for state infrastructure and the municipalities that are responsible for the municipal.

It is also no surprise that the principle in Sweden for a long time has been that it is the developer who is responsible for connection costs. I believe that this could have been sorted out and influenced much earlier. Without getting into the individual case, I believe that such measures as are needed in the entire corridor need to be brought to the planning table in time so that there is clarity on who is responsible for what and so that questions that may be unclear or where there are conflicting objectives can be raised so that they can be resolved.

Now this question is raised. Trafikverket is a participating party in this process, and therefore it is inappropriate for me to comment in too much detail on an individual case.

If we had had ministerial government in Sweden in a different order, I could have answered Kalle Olsson's question in a different way. But the reasoning that I want to emphasize the importance of is indeed completely in line with what Kalle Olsson says, that there is a danger in delay. Therefore, it is important that we get an order to decide on various smaller or larger conflict issues where principles stand against principles.

We are also working with an instrument within the Government Offices where we are preparing the directives for an inquiry on national physical planning to obtain an order and a better structure in order to be able to resolve these types of goal conflicts in a faster way.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister and I agree when it comes to describing the general conditions for establishments and exploitations. A common situation is that a developer wants to establish themselves in a shopping center, and the municipality sells off land. In that case, the municipality also charges based on the costs for connection points and other expenses that are incurred. There is nothing strange about that. Here we have a consensus.

But what we are talking about here is not a trading post or a hot dog stand, but something very fundamental in the state's core mission. This is about us increasing the defense capability, and we must do it quickly.

For the common man, it seems obvious that the state then takes collective responsibility for this. In that context, the municipality becomes more of an enabler. When one as a municipality – in this case, it concerns Östersund Municipality – is asked if one can imagine working quickly forward to strengthen the defense capability, one naturally says yes. One does not say no. Then one works forward-leaning and quickly and tries to be as accommodating as possible. One takes pride in being prompt. It is precisely this that has been done.

But somewhere, Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to how accommodating one can be. That limit is crossed when one is expected to start putting teaching positions and elderly care at stake because the state cannot coordinate and agree on how to conduct business internally within the state. It is completely unacceptable.

I cannot account for what has been said during the negotiations, which are still ongoing between the actors. I can, however, note a certain change in the tone from Trafikverket in the statements that have been made recently. But I can also simultaneously state that the issue is not yet resolved. There is no proposal for a detailed development plan that can be adopted when the municipal executive board in Östersund meets next Tuesday. After that, it is the summer break, and the next meeting of the municipal executive board is in August.

This interpellation was submitted in March. At that time, the lockages were known, also by the minister and his department.

I hear what the Minister says, that he cannot judge in an individual issue. But the government can set principles. We still have a constitution that says it is the government that governs the realm. It is about, among other things, ensuring that one handles conflicts of interest and handles deadlocks between departments and agencies. The government simply has the overall responsibility for the progress of the state. One cannot get away from that.

What we are talking about here is not really particularly much about a municipal detailed plan, but it is a national security interest: to build up military facilities in Östersund in order to be able to train conscripts on a sporty timetable.

Then one cannot sit high up in some tower and just observe the whole thing and refer to principles. It does not move the process forward, but here one must act as a government.

Östersund is not the only municipality, Mr. Speaker, that will end up in a situation where one is expected to work together with the Swedish Armed Forces, the National Property Board for Defence (Fortifikationsverket), or the Prison and Probation Service in urgent state matters. Here, the government must establish what shall apply and be involved early in the processes, so that we do not end up in such situations in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Kalle Olsson and I agree on much, but I object to the description that I should be sitting high up in a tower. I have, therefore, updated myself on the situation and informed myself about the state of affairs. I have had conversations both with the municipal management in the municipality concerned and with Trafikverket.

I also note that Kalle Olsson has observed a changed tone, but it is, therefore, an ongoing process. One can sit either close down on the ground, high up in a tower, or wherever one wants. But it would be directly inappropriate if I, in an interpellation debate in the Swedish Riksdag, were to decide this process today. There are procedures for how such things should be done. I naturally expect that everyone takes their responsibility in the situation that has arisen.

Let me say something about the general question. In a municipality's detailed planning work, it is included to describe and investigate how the traffic situation will be affected, whether it remains a traffic congestion arising as a result of a development, and how it needs to be handled. If measures in the state infrastructure are required, a co-financing agreement shall be established before the detailed plan is adopted to ensure that the measures are carried out.

The municipality that plans a development with the support of a detailed plan will become Trafikverket's legal counterparty during the signing of an agreement on co-financing. The municipality can then, in turn, recover these costs from the developer. It sounds very simple, but it is of course clear that one needs to both be aware of this and, at an early stage, clarify if there are any differences of opinion or conflicting objectives.

In light of the funds we are investing in the defense expansion, it is not strange if large sums are spent on building a new regiment and the responsible municipality says that measures need to be taken in the infrastructure to make it possible and that they need funds for that. If this had been on the table earlier, we would not have this discussion today.

I am not saying this to point fingers in the situation that has arisen, but because we need to use the existing structures in an effective way. There must be clarity in the processes, because this is not the only example in Sweden where we need to upgrade the defense at high speed and the infrastructure becomes either a bottleneck or an enabler for the expansion. I believe there is much to learn from this.

Then one also needs to ensure that the situation is resolved in an efficient way where everyone takes responsibility. But I do not believe, as Kalle Olsson suggests, that one needs to make huge changes in the principles. If an industrial establishment is to be made, if a connection to a villa is needed, or if one needs to carry out a state exploitation, it is quite natural to look at the total cost. There, something as small as a roundabout in the context can be important to include already at the beginning.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that lessons need to be drawn from this. But I am not saying this to point out things in the current situation –

that one should have done this or that or the other or so. I believe that one constantly needs to be aware that there is a danger in delay, but that one also needs to learn along the way, so that the next step becomes even more wisely placed and perhaps can be taken at a faster pace.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! For a long time we have heard that we must transition in order to meet the threat from Russia. We must become more proactive and more agile. We cannot continue to do the things we did during the time of eternal peace, when we had the luxury of having these types of almost academic exercises and could spend half a year, a year, or several years debating such an issue.

Östersund Municipality understood it early on. They picked up the glove and heeded the signals. They understood the danger of delay. They made sure to do the job. They interrupted vacations. They did their part in this. But on the state's side, it still, after several years, does not look as if they have even spoken with each other across the agency boundaries.

Somewhere the responsibility must also fall on a government, I think. That is why we have this interpellation debate. As a member of Parliament, I do not have the possibility to call a director-general to the chamber of the Riksdag. I can agree that it could have been relevant in this case. But instead, I must now pose the question to the Minister.

I think the entire handling casts a shadow of ridicule over parts of the state administration, but also that a responsibility falls on the government. We have a government that has had a very high tone when it comes to internal and external security and also done a good deal of good things; that must be said. But I believe that Putin would laugh at us if he saw how we were proceeding in this matter. In Sweden, we cannot even agree on the responsibility for a roundabout in Östersund that needs to be reinforced to meet the defense's needs. One can also see it from Ukrainian eyes. Would they have the luxury of spending years dividing over a roundabout, given the situation that is now?

I believe it is very important that the government clarifies this and that one coordinates better in the state for the future. This is, as said, not the last time that municipalities are expected to step up and work closely with the state in order to, among other things, strengthen Sweden's defense.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Kalle Olsson for raising this issue!

I expect all actors to contribute to us getting a good solution on this. But I will broaden the picture. We are now seeing a major upgrade that is not just about the military defense. We see, area by area, that our preparedness is being strengthened, that cooperation is being strengthened, and that authorities are beginning to speak the same language. We see it also in the infrastructure area. I and the transport ministers in the Nordic countries have taken the initiative for a common picture and established what is called Nordic Transport Preparedness Cooperation. We then do not just sit with our own picture in Sweden, but we also look at Norway, Denmark, and Finland and see how the maps hang together and how we can jointly strengthen cross-border transport.

I know that this is something Kalle Olsson is aware of, but I wanted to conclude by underlining it. It can, after all, sound as if nothing works when one discusses an individual example, which in itself is important.

If we look at the overall picture, we see what the situation is with the historically large infrastructure framework. For the first time, the requirements of total defense are included, and they are taken into account when it comes to the upgrading of both road and railway.

We are strengthening the lines in a north-westerly direction and in an east-westerly direction. With the funds that we have jointly agreed upon, across the block boundary, in the Swedish Riksdag and which are beyond the national plan, we have announced that the Inlandsbanan shall be upgraded, which is highly prioritized on the Armed Forces' list.

So, a lot will happen in the future. A lot is happening already. It is, of course, important that the work is carried out as quickly as possible and that one has all the details on board from the beginning, so that they can be taken care of early. That is my expectation.

Mr. Speaker! I wanted to conclude by looking up, because here I know that Kalle Olsson and I agree. An upgrade is underway. That also involves upgrading Swedish infrastructure, which is either a bottleneck or an enabler for the military capability that we are also strengthening.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)