Response to interpellation 2025/26:508 on support for civil society's road safety organizations
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 prioritizes road safety by specifying that the grant may only be used for road safety work 1 2 3 4. KD claims that it is not a halving of the support but a reinforcement of the focus 2 4 and emphasizes that the government is investing in road maintenance, trimming measures, and safe school routes 1 2 4. KD is proud of the Swedish road safety work and argues that Sweden has made great strides since the 70s 4. KD believes that the work must continue because every life counts 4. S argues that the government is halving the support to civil society, which affects preventive measures 5 6 7 and that civil society's local work cannot be replaced 5 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Carina Ödebrink has asked me about my and the government's arguments for reducing the support to civil society's road safety organizations by more than half, whether I believe that the support to civil society's road safety organizations can be reduced without road safety being negatively affected and, if not, how I intend to act to counteract the negative impact as well as what consequence analyses have been made regarding the proposed reduction and which organizations the government has held a dialogue with prior to the decision.
I would like to begin by reminding that as recently as April 29, 2026, I answered a similar question from Carina Ödebrink. My answer today will therefore fundamentally be the same.
Swedish road safety work is successful, and increased road safety is a priority for the government. The zero vision remains the basis for road safety work in Sweden. Civil society's engagement is significant and appreciated, and the government sees great value in the efforts that voluntary organizations around the country contribute with.
The state needs to take responsibility for ensuring that the gathered resources are used in as accurate and efficient a way as possible. The government is making extensive investments in the maintenance of road and railway infrastructure, which is an important part of improving traffic safety.
The Government has recently established the national plan for transport infrastructure for the period 2026–2037. This involves, among other things, increased funds for trimming measures, and a part of these funds is proposed to be directed towards measures to increase traffic safety. A well-functioning and well-maintained transport system is a fundamental prerequisite for safe transport and contributes to preventing accidents.
Regarding the support to civil society organizations, the government has changed the condition for the current grant to ensure that state funds are used where they do the most good. As part of the prioritization work, the government has adjusted the support to civil society to increase the focus on road safety. Grants to non-profit organizations can therefore only be granted to organizations that work with road safety.
Overall, the government is taking several measures to strengthen road safety. Civil society will continue to be an important part of this work together with academia, authorities, and private actors.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Just as the Minister said, I have raised the issue in this interpellation earlier, and just as in my previous interpellation, it is about the state choosing to halve and reduce the costs when it comes to grants to civil society organizations that work with road safety.
It is about actors who meet children on their way to school, elderly people in traffic, cyclists, young drivers, parents, associations and local communities. It is work that takes place close to people, and for that very reason, it cannot easily be replaced by an agency, a report or a national plan.
The government is reducing Trafikverket's support to voluntary organizations by 8 million kronor. This means it is more than halved. At the same time, we know that the road safety goals for 2030 are difficult to reach. Trafikverket itself says that more measures are required.
During 2025, over 200 people died in road traffic, and around 5,000 were seriously injured. The goal for 2030 is a maximum of 133 deaths and a significant reduction in the number of seriously injured.
My question is simple: Why does the government choose to cut back on the preventive measures right now?
The Minister has previously answered that the government is investing in road maintenance and trimming measures. That is good, but it is not an answer to the question. Road safety is not just about asphalt, railings, and road standards. It is also about behaviors, knowledge, speeds, sobriety, children's school routes and safety for unprotected road users, as well as civil society's engagement.
This is also something that road safety organizations point out. Sweden has done an incredible amount when it comes to addressing the hard facts that can prevent accidents, and today they see that the most important thing is to work with people's behaviors. That is where civil society plays a major role.
When organizations work with bike-friendly schools, recommended school routes, winter cycling for children, or road safety for new groups in Sweden, it is the concrete efforts that reach people in their everyday lives. It is therefore difficult to understand how the government can say that road safety is prioritized while simultaneously halving the support for those who do this work locally.
I therefore want to ask the Minister again: Which impact assessment shows that this reduction can be made without negatively affecting road safety? And if no such analysis exists, why has the government made the decision?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I am glad to be able to answer that question in the chamber, because there is clearly a misunderstanding here. We are indeed making a saving on this appropriation, but we are also making a very important change which emphasizes that money can only be used for road safety work and for organizations that work with road safety.
That means that this appropriation, which now amounts to 7 million kronor, can only be used for road safety work. Previously, more organizations have been able to apply, and there has been some uncertainty about how much it will amount to for road safety in the future, at each tender.
The member knows that the amount in the regulatory letters for 2024 and 2025 was 15 million kronor; that is what she refers to when she says that a reduction of 8 million has been made. But what has actually been paid out to road safety is over 8 million kronor, so it is not such a large cut as the member has perceived it to be – which can easily happen when one only looks at the figures.
That the government is now so clearly changing direction and clarifying that the money shall go to road safety work will also become an important prerequisite for the work ahead. It is urgent and important, and the civil society organizations carry out an immensely valuable work.
This should also be seen in conjunction with the government's measures regarding safe school routes. In the new strategy for living cities that I am responsible for and which the government has made a decision on, Mr. Speaker, school routes have been highlighted as one of the focus areas. It is about providing support for urban development and how planning is conducted in every municipality in Sweden.
The continued work of civil society, the schools' focus on safe school routes, and that the municipalities, with the new strategy, receive a clear signal and direction regarding what is important in urban development and when planning new areas and optimizing existing areas, namely safe school routes – collectively, this is a very important message in the work to increase traffic safety, which must continue and where the government has made major prioritizations.
Then the member says that we are not discussing trimming measures and maintenance now, and that is correct. It is important, and I am glad the member notes that. But everyone following the debate may not be aware of the change we have made, Mr. Speaker, namely an increase of the amount limit. The member does, however. Previously, it was the case that a measure over 100 million kronor became a named object, and there were quite a few objects that exceeded that threshold. Now we have raised the threshold to 150, and it is those measures that are called trimming measures.
We have also clarified in the national plan that measures to increase road safety shall be prioritized. This can involve measures to make the cycle paths to and from the school safer, and if the measure is below 150 million kronor, the bureaucracy and administration are significantly reduced. Even in that part, the pace of the work can therefore increase.
I thought it was important to clarify that this is a prioritization, Mr. Speaker, but that it also concerns the fact that funds from this pot will only be able to go towards road safety work in the future.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I hear the Minister say that support for civil society is important, that it means a lot and that it is a priority for the government. But nevertheless, one chooses to cut back.
One can express it in different ways, but if the support was previously 15 million and 8 million has been paid out, I could ask why the government has not been more proactive and ensured that more money has reached civil society to work with precisely behavioral changes. Civil society itself says it is an important part of being able to reach the milestone goal regarding the number of those killed and injured in traffic.
Then the Minister states that the support is now to become more targeted and that grants shall therefore only be given to organizations that work with road safety, but when I go to Trafikverket's website I clearly see that it states that project grants could already previously only be applied for by non-profit associations that, according to their statutes, work to increase road safety. The Government therefore does not seem to have sharpened the focus of the support but instead reduced it, and that is a significant difference.
A safer road is important, but it does not help the child who is not allowed to learn to cycle safely. It does not help the elderly who need support in an increasingly complex traffic environment, and it does not help the work against alcohol and drugs in traffic. It also does not help local initiatives that can prevent accidents before they occur. Road safety is built in several links, and if the government weakens one of the links, the chain becomes weaker.
I also want to ask the Minister about the dialogue with civil society. Which organizations has the government actually spoken with before the decision was made? Have NTF, Cykelfrämjandet, MHF or other affected actors been allowed to describe what the reduction actually means in practice? This is not just a budget line, however, it is activities that risk disappearing. It is local projects that will not happen. It is fewer schools, fewer children, fewer elderly and fewer associations that are reached.
Sweden has been successful in road safety work precisely because we have had a broad model. The state, municipalities, regions, research, the business sector, and civil society have worked together. My concern is that the government is now dismantling part of that model while simultaneously claiming to uphold the zero vision.
The Government must therefore be clear regarding which measures are to be removed. What should be deprioritized, and how will the Government ensure that civil society's unique role is not lost?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to being more proactive, the member knows that much of this type of work has long lead times and that it is now we have worked on being just more proactive and steering towards increased road safety.
In the regulatory letters for both 2024 and 2025, it stated clearly that the funds could be used for grants to non-profit organizations that perform tasks that contribute to the transport policy goals being achieved. It is here that we have changed in the regulatory letter for 2026 so that it clearly appears that funds can go to non-profit organizations that perform tasks that contribute to increased road safety. That is the clarification we have made.
I cannot answer in exactly what time span we have had contact with different organizations, but I have personally had contact with both NTF and MHF, to mention two of them that the member highlights.
With that, I have already answered the questions being asked. This is a prioritization, but it is also clear that grants are only granted to organizations that work with road safety, which we have specified.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I shall thank the Minister for the answer and for this debate, which I think is very important. I also believe that we agree on the core of the debate, namely that road safety is important. We also agree that Sweden shall have high ambitions.
The government's decision, however, is going in the wrong direction. My impression of what the government has expressed during the nearly four years it has been in power is that it should be forward-looking, proactive, offensive, and contribute to changes. But here, the minister refers to long lead times and that it means they perhaps have not been able to be more proactive when it comes to just this part of road safety.
When civil society reaches groups that authorities have difficulty reaching, the government should seize that power – not halve the support. When children, young people, the elderly, and vulnerable road users need more safety in traffic, the government should not cut back on the local initiatives that actually make a difference. Instead, the government should be more proactive.
The Minister has spoken about road maintenance and trimming measures. This is needed, but it is not enough. The zero vision requires both safe roads and safe behaviors. It requires both technology, infrastructure, and human presence. Therefore, my question remains, Mr. Speaker: Why does the government choose to cut back on civil society's road safety work just now when we need to do more?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! As I have clarified in this debate, it is not about a halving. A reinforcement is being made in the wording – it is about work with traffic safety. When it comes to the appropriation, a saving is being made, but it is not such a clear saving as the member claims. It is not a halving.
As I said earlier, the 7 million kronor that are now being allocated for this can only be applied for by organizations that contribute to increased road safety. One can always discuss the level of the grant, and I am happy to do so. What many have thought to be positive is that it is now even clearer that this grant is about road safety and nothing else.
The government is also taking measures to strengthen road maintenance and trimming and highlights safe school routes as a strategically important issue for urban development and the development of municipalities. This work will continue.
It pleases me that there is such a great consensus regarding road safety work in Sweden; this is something we should be proud of. However, we must definitely not be satisfied yet, because there is more to be done both here in Sweden and globally. Sweden has made gains in this area since the 70s, especially after the decision on the zero vision in the 90s. Many countries around the world look at us in Sweden and learn from us.
This work, of course, needs to continue both globally and here at home in Sweden. Every life counts, and therefore these priorities are important. I am glad that Carina Ödebrink shed light on this issue, and I thank you for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.