Response to interpellations 2022/23:124, 132 and 136 on a long-term sustainable infrastructure

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Carina Ödebrink has asked me what initiatives I am prepared to take in light of what has been put forward in the interpellation regarding the long-term planning of transport infrastructure.

Anders Ådahl has asked me what initiatives I intend to take to ensure a sustainable development of the commuting between Göteborg and Borås and, in particular, train commuting on the new railway line.

Daniel Helldén has asked me whether the government's announcement the day before Christmas means that the four-track Lund-Hässleholm project is being scrapped or if I intend to complete the previous planning with two new tracks for the main line between Lund and Hässleholm.

I choose to answer the interpellations jointly.

Carina Ödebrink touches upon several important issues in her interpellation, and it is easy to agree with much of what is put forward. A small and export-dependent country like Sweden naturally needs a robust infrastructure. It is a prerequisite for our economy and competitiveness, and therefore long-term thinking is needed in the planning of our infrastructure.

Anders Ådahl and Daniel Helldén have questions regarding specific parts of the previous high-speed train project.

The Government made four decisions on 22 December 2022 regarding the previous government's plans for new trunk lines for high-speed trains that can reach speeds of 320 kilometers per hour.

For Ostlänken, Trafikverket shall identify and implement cost-reducing measures, however, without it causing any significant delay to the work on Ostlänken.

For the section Gothenburg-Borås, the objective is to investigate a modified solution without delaying the start of traffic. Trafikverket shall analyze which alternative measures or packages of measures in the railway system for speeds of up to at most 250 kilometers per hour can cost-effectively expand the railway capacity in the corridor. The purpose is primarily to improve the conditions for work commuting in the region as well as to improve the connection to Landvetter Airport.

For the section Hässleholm-Lund, the planning is concluded according to the original plan for new main lines for high-speed trains. Instead, a new approach is taken to highlight new measures in the railway system, which in a cost-effective manner achieve capacity improvements in Skåne. It shall primarily concern measures on the section Hässleholm-Lund but also measures on other sections. The Government awaits Trafikverket's investigation before a new decision is made.

The planning for the central parts of the new main lines, between Linköping and Borås and Hässleholm via Jönköping, is cancelled.

The motives for the decisions are that the government prioritizes the upgrading of existing railways, better road standards, and expanded charging infrastructure over investments in high-speed trains. The needs within the infrastructure are great, and an investment in high-speed rail would crowd out other necessary investments. Investments in the railway should primarily facilitate commuting and freight traffic in order to strengthen jobs and growth.

The Government intends to return to issues regarding long-term infrastructure planning during the mandate period.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer. I do not wish to be rude, but I must nevertheless say that it is a remarkable non-answer.

The ambition I had with my interpellation was to try to look at the important infrastructure issues from a broader perspective and to achieve a constructive debate here in the chamber on an issue that is completely decisive for our country for Sweden's role in the sustainable green transition and for growth and competitiveness. I also wonder what the government's vision and thoughts look like regarding the role of infrastructure in the construction of society.

Our responsibility as decision-makers is not just here and now or for this mandate period. We also have a responsibility as far as our ability and knowledge allow to make decisions that are as wise as possible. What do we need to do today so that our country will stand stronger, safer, and more successful and sustainable in 20, 30, and 50 years?

Madam Speaker! For me, politics is about two things. On the one hand, it is about highlighting differences – this is what we want, in contrast to you. It makes it clear for those we represent. On the other hand, politics is also about being able to unite and take responsibility in issues that affect people in their everyday lives for generations to come. Security policy, energy issues, and climate transition are clear, current examples of that. Such an issue is also infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! Against that background, Andreas Carlson's answer to my interpellation is highly remarkable. I am very pleased that the Minister agrees with what I think, but that he cannot manage more than to agree with what I write in four and a half lines in general terms, I find to be disrespectful towards the Riksdag and towards the trust that Andreas Carlson has as a Minister.

The green transition that is taking place today in northern Sweden is a result of a policy that is about wanting and enabling, and about setting the course and setting sail to create and take advantage of the winds in the green revolution. It is a challenge to plan and realize what we want to happen. It is about housing construction, infrastructure, energy, and skills supply.

Another of our time's greatest social construction projects concerns the need for new capacity for passenger and freight transport on the railway. The question of new main lines has been discussed for several decades, and there is certainly reason for self-reflection across the political spectrum when it comes to finding long-term sustainable solutions.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have now decided to scrap the plans for new main lines. This has sparked many reactions from the business community, municipalities, and regions, which, in addition, have during the process invested a lot of time, money, and commitment, signed agreements, and committed themselves to contributing to the realization.

To say no also entails having an alternative to solve the problems we see, and therefore I want to ask the Minister: What measures does Andreas Carlson intend to take to create a sustainable long-term perspective when it comes to large infrastructure projects, and what is the government's proposal today to increase capacity on the railway?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! On December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, when people stood at home and glazed the ham, dealt with broccoli and wrapped presents, the announcement came that main lines in Sweden, which have been investigated and discussed for ten years, are being concluded and discontinued by the government. It does not quite look like one wanted attention around such news, one might say.

I have spent quite a lot of time lately talking to municipal politicians, municipal officials, and the business community in Western Sweden. To be honest, there is no one who thinks the decision is good; rather, people think it is bad.

Since the previous bourgeois government initiated the Sweden Negotiation in 2014, enormous resources have been invested in laying the foundation for a powerful capacity increase for Sweden's transport network. Investments have been investigated, negotiated, and planned over millions of man-hours. Just for Borås-Gothenburg, I believe that 18 different alternatives have been investigated.

State, municipality, and the business sector have invested billions of kronor in this work. Expectations have been built up for the future. People in and around our larger cities have envisioned how accessibility will increase in everyday life and how regions will grow. Now, instead, there is confusion, disappointment, and anxiety. Sweden is backing away from the future.

New trunk lines are needed if the country Sweden is to keep up with growth. This both bourgeois and Social Democratic governments have known previously. Gothenburg, Borås and Jönköping are three separate labor market regions today. It is a part of Sweden that has an enormous untapped potential. Gothenburg-Borås is one of Sweden's absolutely most trafficked commuting routes. Every day around 125,000 people commute in this route, but it is less than 1 percent who choose the train.

With a new train connection, the travel time between Göteborg and Borås could drop from today's 60 minutes by bus to 35 minutes by train, and if the entire stretch is built out with new railway, the travel time between Göteborg and Jönköping could drop from two hours by bus to 50 minutes by train. We would then have a labor market region with significant opportunity for skills supply and at the same time give people the opportunity to live in a much larger geographical area.

Göteborg-Borås is today Sweden's least attractive commuter railway. It is a sad child, or a museum railway if you will, from 1894. The train's average speed is 68 kilometers per hour. Both car and bus are significantly faster. Today, 1,400 buses pass Kallebäcksmotet, which is the entrance to Gothenburg from the east. It is, frankly, not quite wise.

From Western Sweden, the signals are clear. If the project is postponed, it will be delayed by at least five to ten years, in the worst case for an indefinite period. The Minister says in the interpellation response that the start of traffic shall not be delayed despite new investigations. Frankly, there is no one who believes that.

My question now also concerns the decision regarding the Göteborg-Borås stretch, where the direction is to investigate a modified solution. I wonder, Minister: What does it mean that the direction is to investigate a new solution? What does direction mean? What does this decision mean for Göteborg-Borås? Politicians and officials in the municipalities along the stretch do not know the answer.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation regarding new main lines on the Lund-Hässleholm section.

The question was whether two new tracks will be built on the main line so that we get four tracks between Lund and Hässleholm. Unfortunately, as we have heard earlier here, we get no answer from the Minister, but rather a repetition of the press release that the department sent out on 23 December. No information is provided. I would say that the Minister could just as well have sent out the press release again instead of writing an interpellation answer. I had expected something more substantial regarding what applies to the Södra stambanan and specifically for the mentioned section and the capacity needs we have for freight traffic, passenger traffic, and regional traffic.

We know that the need is great and that it is growing. The shift of transport to trains is necessary. If we are to meet the climate goals, if we are to manage to have a functioning railway system that does not stop at the slightest disruption, if citizens are to safely get to work or to relatives and friends and if the goods are to arrive, we need new tracks. In that regard, there is no doubt.

Now we know for certain that the decision from the government in the days before Christmas very well may mean that there will be no additional main lines and tracks, especially not between Lund and Hässleholm. The risk is imminent that we will be left with two tracks on the main line for the foreseeable future. This means that the entire capacity increase that we so much need and that everyone realizes is needed will be delayed by decades. This is deeply worrying.

New main lines are needed not only for Lund-Hässleholm, but we need to build a robust network in all of southern Sweden. The Minister knows this too, even though he now says that he has changed his mind. I must quote the Minister, Madam Speaker, because I find it a bit amusing: "The single biggest problem in the transport system is the capacity shortage within our current railway system. The capacity shortage severely limits the railway's ability to meet today's and the future's needs. New main lines would relieve the old ones, which can continue to be used for passenger traffic, but also to a greater extent be reserved for freight traffic. It improves for commuting and strengthens the conditions for Swedish industry with increased punctuality of deliveries."

Madam Speaker! The Minister recognizes that this is needed – there is no doubt about that. The Minister also recognizes it when it comes to the central parts, which have also been removed, namely Hässleholm-Jönköping, Linköping-Jönköping and Borås-Jönköping. The Minister states in another motion that it is absolutely necessary for Jönköping County that this is done, in order to be able to achieve good transport when it comes to the local business community and the residents in the area.

The Minister knows that the main lines are needed but is now in the process of scrapping all possibilities for new reinforcements of the main lines. Again: This is incredibly problematic.

It makes it even more worrying that the Minister has allowed all the sections we are now talking about in the EU's planning for new main lines, the so-called TEN-T network, to be removed. This puts a spoke in the wheel, not only for this mandate period's government but also for forward-looking future governments that know that this is needed.

I must ask the Minister: How can the Minister defend this? We simply cannot do without the help from the EU to build new main lines.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! I have been a member of Parliament since the 2014 election, and train travel is my natural route between Hässleholm and the Riksdag. This alternative has, however, been far from painless. Cancelled trains, major train delays, and fully booked trains have unfortunately become part of everyday life for us train commuters. Why? Yes, because the main lines are old and worn out. But above all, they are at full capacity.

When the government, therefore, on December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, presented that they are now scrapping several of these important initiatives, it was more comparable to a lump of coal than a Christmas present. And many of us felt disappointed.

Skåne is, as many know, a metropolitan region consisting of Sweden's third largest city Malmö but also of several other large cities and a network of public transport-accessible and densely populated localities. They are connected by an infrastructure that enables labor, employment opportunities, education, culture and sports, housing as well as recreation throughout my region.

Skåne is also a region characterized by large population growth, world-leading research, and an expansive business sector.

One of the biggest bottlenecks in Skåne, and which does not only affect my region but actually also Sweden and northern Europe, is the stretch Hässleholm-Lund. There, the capacity ceiling has practically been reached regarding trains that can run on this stretch - 97 percent.

I am grateful, however, that we now have many voices being heard in this debate from across the entire political spectrum. On January 12, for example, a position paper was submitted from Skånsk Horisont regarding the expansion of track capacity through Skåne with a focus on Lund-Hässleholm. This is signed by the chairman of the municipal executive board and the vice chairman of the municipal executive board from virtually every municipality affected. This is a paper signed by the most influential political figures in Skåne from across the entire political spectrum, from Social Democrats, to Moderates, to Sweden Democrats and to Liberals. This means something. This issue is so important and prioritized that in Skåne, people are prepared to join forces politically to show the government that this is a decision that is wrong and that something must be done.

On this paper, one can read, among other things: The railway system's function and development, both for people and freight, is crucial for connecting both Sweden and Europe and contributes to social development as well as strengthening the business sector's competitiveness.

The Southern Main Line is one of Sweden's most important railway connections for both passenger transport and freight, and measures are required in Skåne, primarily between Lund and Hässleholm, to maintain functionality and strengthen both regional and national traffic.

But it is not only in Skåne that these voices are heard. We have, in fact, heard in the debate that it is not only projects in Skåne that are being scrapped. And this upsets large parts of the country.

If the government chooses not to listen to the political voices, perhaps one should listen to Trafikverket, which clearly explains on its website that the Södra and Västra main lines are nationally important for both passenger and freight traffic and that these lines are already heavily burdened today.

Therefore, I must ask the Minister: Are these votes sufficient for the government to rectify and do right, and to continue the work already underway? Or is one prepared to risk destroying an infrastructure that is necessary to await an investigation that will point out exactly everything that has already been mentioned today?

(Applause)

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to extend a thanks to the government and Minister Andreas Carlson for the sensible decision to cancel the planning of a high-speed railway for speeds of 320 kilometers per hour through Skåne.

Since the previous government tasked Trafikverket with building such a track for speeds of 320 kilometers per hour, there was no possibility of building it along the existing main line.

Instead, Trafikverket began a design project through previously unbroken Scanian land. Had the proposal become a reality, it would have forever destroyed today's completely unique biotopes. It would have forever created a new barrier through the Scanian landscape with associated noise disturbances and devastation for farmers and residents in the affected areas.

In the reception that the government has now announced, I envision that instead one lands on an expansion of the existing main lines with two additional tracks.

In my previous assignment as the chairman of the municipal executive board in Hässleholm, I have experienced that there is a solid basis confirming the need for two new tracks between Hässleholm and Lund. I envision an expansion similar to the one that is currently taking place on the Malmö-Lund section.

Today, the maximum capacity of the existing main line has practically been reached. Simply no more trains can fit. This hinders development and growth in northeastern Skåne, in Blekinge, and in southern Småland. The situation will become even more acute when the now-initiated connection across the Fehmarn Belt is completed in 2029. At that time, freight traffic by rail is expected to increase significantly. And without increased capacity on the Södra stambanan, there will be major problems. The freight cannot just land at the rail yard in Malmö. There, it is unlikely to fit.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I expect all these facts regarding the expansion of the main line between Hässleholm and Lund to become clear in connection with the wise rethink that the government has now announced.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for his very clear message, which I believe is important and valuable for us to hear.

I hear a very great commitment to building a new high-speed railway. With such a large commitment as it would be to build such a railway, we also know that it involves incredibly large risks. I know that many who are sitting here tonight also sit in the transport committee. We have also heard in what poor condition our railway is. A high-speed railway would crowd out much else that must be done.

I, as a new member of the transport committee, may find it very strange that the previous government nevertheless put so much effort into building this railway when it was known that there are so many deficits in terms of the railway that exists today.

My question to the interpellor Carina Ödebrink is how she thinks the government should proceed. We need, in fact, to upgrade the current railway. When we have been out in various places, we have heard so much about the fact that there are such deficiencies and so much that needs to be done. It requires a very large amount of money for this. In that case, it is very strange that one still maintains that one wants to build this high-speed railway.

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a great commitment.

Let me first say that I think it is unfortunate that Carina Ödebrink thinks the answer is disrespectful. That was definitely not my intention. On the contrary, we now have the debate on the role of infrastructure that the member requested. And it concerns not only here and now but also in the long term - 20, 30, 50 years ahead as member Ödebrink mentioned. It is also from this perspective that the government now needs to take responsibility for the whole country - for the entire need in the entire infrastructure system, where railway maintenance and railway investments are needed. But it is also there that the very expensive and costly main lines for high-speed trains risk crowding out both maintenance and investments not only for 20, 30 and 50 years ahead but also longer than that.

Yes, politics is about differences. Here, my party and the coalition parties that form the basis of the government were clear before the election that we would not proceed, but rather cancel the work on main lines for high-speed trains. That is also what we have now done. The needs are great, and an investment in high-speed rail risks pushing out other necessary investments.

Other investments in the railway system mean better conditions for trains to travel faster in the future even without high-speed rail. Many investments in existing tracks could be completed faster than an expansion of new main lines.

I now move on to Member Ådahl's questions. Some have pointed out the timing of when this was presented. It was done in close proximity to when the decision was made. I do not think the Chamber would have appreciated if we had held back the information until the new year, even though the decision was made on 22 December - for various reasons, depending on what one has in the oven before Christmas and so on.

We communicated when we had something to communicate, and it was in close connection to the decision having been made the day before. It is nothing strange that one communicates when one has decided. It is not in any way about attention - whether it would be less or more attention - but when we had a decision, we communicated that decision.

I would like to have a good dialogue if it is the case that the decision that has been made has not been understood and if there are questions regarding it. I see this debate as an opportunity for such. I have also responded to inquiries in the media to clear up the whole matter.

When it concerns specifically Gothenburg-Borås, as the question pertains to, the message is that it shall take place without traffic start being delayed. It is therefore about the assignment to Trafikverket to see what modified solution can be produced. This is set in relation to the fact that the section shall not be part of the main lines for high-speed trains but instead facilitate for work commuting in the region, where the needs are very large. It is also about getting a rail connection to Landvetter.

There are various documents from earlier here, and Trafikverket now has a few months to develop the best model to produce this as quickly as possible. This is to be done without delaying the start of traffic. That is the clear message from the government. The direction is also this, and I hope those who did not know what the answer was earlier know it now. Otherwise, I am happy to come to the member's part of the country and continue the good dialogue.

So, is the Hässleholm-Lund project and double track and four track included there? No, that is not how the decision should be interpreted. The decision is about canceling when it concerns high-speed trains running at 320 kilometers per hour. All other different proposals and alternatives that have been developed during the time are included in the assignment that Trafikverket now has. I will gladly return to this in the next response and elaborate on it.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I make some reflections regarding what has been said.

The Minister claims that with this decision, the government takes responsibility for the entire country. I see it more as that one is turning a blind eye to the reality and the problems we see today. It is such things as municipal and regional politics, the business community and other actors see is an obvious problem not just here and now today. It will also hinder development in the long run if we are unable to manage to take on building more capacity.

It is not enough to patch and repair and wait and see. We risk losing ground. The leading economies in Europe and in the world are planning or have already completed railways for fast transport. I do not think we need to talk about high-speed trains, because it is not so much about the time. It is about the capacity; that is exactly what everyone who sees that this is needed says.

Governments have invested a lot of effort and time into this. Yes, that is because it is an important and relevant problem that we have identified and which the bourgeois government also identified in 2014! It was prepared to invest enormous amounts of money in this because it was important for Sweden's sustainable growth and future development.

When it comes to risks, one probably saw risks also in the 1850s when discussions were held and decisions were made regarding the main lines. Risks were seen, and ministers resigned, when planning was done to build the Öresund Bridge. Today we know that it has entailed enormous dynamic effects, development, and economic growth.

Madam Speaker! It is about capacity. Sveriges Åkeriföretag and Tågföretagen have presented a number of proposals where they say: If there can be more capacity and intermodal transport, one can create more transport efficiency and also contribute to climate adaptation. The Chambers of Commerce in Southern Sweden have also shown in a report the need for new railway for passenger transport and freight in Sweden.

This is the biggest social construction issue in modern times, together with what is now happening in the northern part of Sweden. The number of employed people will increase, and the number of housing units will increase. It fits like a glove when it comes to meeting the growing population. In just over ten years, Sweden will pass 11 million inhabitants.

Fehmarn Bält and the need to connect Sweden was something that someone took up here earlier.

Madam Speaker! I have two questions in view of this. If we are now to have a necessary and long-term sustainability - is Andreas Carlson prepared to invite the parties in the Riksdag so that the politics can unite around a greater long-term perspective when it comes to infrastructure planning? And if one does not do this here, it will entail costs elsewhere in the form of roads, aviation and so on. I would like to hear more about that.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson for the answer. I would also like to take this opportunity from the rostrum to invite [him] to Western Sweden, for there are incredibly upset thoughts and reflections along the entire stretch between Gothenburg and Borås and out to Jönköping. So, welcome to our part of the country!

There is a great need for communication, because people have really not understood what the decision means. If something is to be investigated again now, it will not be done in an afternoon. It is a fairly large project to investigate a railway section and find different alternatives, so the project will be delayed. I cannot comprehend that it could be in any other way, and I do not understand how the minister is reasoning there.

A wink to the Moderaterna in Hässleholm, who were satisfied with the decision: Moderaterna in Västra Götaland are extremely upset about the decision. There are, therefore, different views within your party.

Madam Speaker! It has been a messy start to the parliamentary term with a government that has taken office after a rather heated election campaign and which says that a paradigm shift is to take place in Sweden. But unfortunately, we have seen so far that most things stand still or go backwards. We have lacked electricity support, no new investments in offshore power production - and now we have, therefore, scrapped main lines for rail traffic in Sweden.

I would like to bring up two texts to illustrate how contradictory and strange the whole thing is.

First, it is the Prime Minister's Secretary of State PM Nilsson, the now well-known "elf-fisher," who has written a text. Until recently, he was the head of the editorial page at Dagens Industri and wrote an editorial on October 4 in Höstas, just before the Prime Minister called. PM Nilsson writes as follows: "Sweden has had too many novice governments that have stopped outgoing governments' transport projects. Do not make that mistake again. . To steer away from the dense, attractive, profitable, and railway-borne European city would be economic madness and political idiocy."

PM Nilsson continues to describe previous governments' greed regarding long-term projects and advises the new government against making the same mistake: "Too expensive, M&Co seem to think. That is nonsense. A couple hundred billion is cheap for a facility that will be used for 150 years and which builds great and long-term values along the routes."

He writes: "New railway tracks with fast trains were part of the previous Moderate-led government's Sweden-building. By connecting the larger cities in southern Sweden with a really good railway network, the municipalities along the line could dare to invest big and new. Which they did. In Norrköping, Linköping, Jönköping, Borås and Hässleholm, plans for new districts and business establishments were projected. But then the parties on the right began to falter."

He concludes rather sternly: "To stop them now would be a scandal and an irresponsible waste. A state cannot behave in that manner."

A state cannot behave in that way - so says the Prime Minister's State Secretary just before he becomes involved in the government. It is actually quite remarkable in many ways.

The second text is the motion from Minister Carlson himself, which we have heard about earlier today, titled Build new main lines for high-speed trains. Obviously, he has now changed his mind.

So my question is: Does Minister Carlson not agree with Member of Parliament Carlson? Does he not agree with himself, quite simply? And what is it that is happening in the Government Offices? "What is happening in Borås" is one of those TikTok things, but what is actually happening in the Government Offices? Does the Minister not agree with the Prime Minister's State Secretary PM Nilsson that we actually need trunk lines?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What has actually happened is that two different decisions have been taken. One is that the government has tasked Trafikverket with withdrawing a large number of projects that Sweden needs. The other is that the Minister in the Council of the EU has removed the withdrawals for new main lines that have been in the EU's TEN-T material, that is to say, the map material. This is remarkable, because what it means is that the co-financing that Sweden can get for new main lines disappears.

We can look at Lund-Hässleholm, for example, Lars Johnsson. Yes, we can talk about adding two tracks next to the existing ones, but the only thing Sweden promises the EU to do is to ensure that a railway remains that runs at at least 160 kilometers per hour. For that, you get no new money from the EU if you are only going to build two tracks.

The Minister has simply taken away Sweden's large EU co-financing sums. This also applies to Borås-Göteborg. That stretch is gone. All central sections are gone. The only things that remain are Ostlänken and Norrbotniabanan. For Norrbotniabanan, we promise it will go at 160 kilometers per hour; for Ostlänken, we promise it will go at 200 kilometers per hour.

This is not about us promising the EU that we will have high-speed trains rolling around the country. They have removed all this material, which means we cannot get the EU co-financing that we are participating in paying for.

There is a pot for the coming years of approximately 200 billion that one can apply for. We can apply for 30 percent for projects within the country. If the projects are cross-border, one can apply for 50 percent. Theoretically, for the main line projects, regardless of whether it concerned high-speed trains or lower speeds, we could in principle apply for 100 billion. Now, we would not receive those sums, but it concerns a lot of money that the minister has simply thrown away in this manner.

Madam Speaker! It is incredibly remarkable that one does such a thing. This has been included in the material the whole time. The Minister shall, as the chair of the Council of Ministers for infrastructure issues, be involved in negotiating these matters during the spring. Ahead of those negotiations, however, one has simply snatched away the possibility of building new main lines - for 2030, for 2040, and for 2050.

I have submitted a written question to the Minister and received the following answer: Yes, but we cannot promise things that may not be ready by 2030 or 2040. We cannot promise to get any tracks for new main lines by 2040. But then Ostlänken remains. It has been promised that it will be ready by 2030, but everyone knows that it will not be. Norrbotniabanan is also in the material and is supposed to be ready by 2030. We know that it will not be.

The Minister and the government have simply ensured that the equivalent of perhaps a third of the entire cost for the new trunk lines is gone from the state's potential funding. I would again like to ask the Minister: How can you do this?

It is not about money for high-speed trains. It is about money for normal trains. When we build normal tracks in Sweden today, it is about 250 kilometers per hour. It is not high-speed trains. It is about promising the EU 200 kilometers per hour, and we don't even do that – which means we cannot get any money from there. It is incredibly remarkable.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Minister Andreas Carlson for the answer. If I were to interpret it kindly, I could feel a little relief right now, but the fact is that I still feel a very great concern for the stretch between Hässleholm and Lund. No more investigations are needed. We know that it needs to be expanded, and now rather than later.

For Hässleholm and the urban areas within Hässleholm, for my neighboring municipalities Kristianstad, Osby, Östra Göinge, Bromölla and several others, and for Skåne and Southern Sweden, the railway station in Hässleholm is an important element - partly in everyday life with school and work commuting, partly in leisure time on the way to cultural and sports events or to relatives and friends.

The consequences of not expanding are not only large for passenger traffic; we also see that it can cause major deficiencies for the business sector and make us risk losing jobs in Skåne.

The Social Democratic government presented historical investments in the railway with, among other things, new main lines, not least to prioritize the climate. This now appears to the right-wing government together with the Sweden Democrats to be being dismantled, and I view that with great concern.

I believe it is incredibly important that we all, and above all the government, understand that it is not enough to patch, repair, and maintain old infrastructure when it is the capacity that must be increased. We must do both. We must maintain, we must develop, and we must above all build - and now!

(Applause)

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as Carina Ödebrink mentioned in her speech, it is not about speed but about capacity. That is why it is so regrettable to note that the previous government tasked Trafikverket with designing the Hässleholm-Lund section for 320 kilometers per hour. At the same time, the previous government gave the assignment to design Linköping-Järna for 250 kilometers per hour and Borås-Göteborg for 250 kilometers per hour. The previous government thus sacrificed Skåne in its attempt to win some single minute in travel time.

Now the new government is correcting that mistake. For this, many people in Skåne are very grateful. Had the previous government done it right from the beginning, this design would have been practically finished, and we would have won a lot of time. Now, unfortunately, that is not the case.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is important that we look at the whole of Sweden. With a high-speed railway, we would be putting all our eggs in one basket. That is not positive. I think the Minister is clear that the government will work to strengthen and renovate today's railway system.

Madam Speaker! Not many people are talking about the cost of building the project. In 2016, people spoke of 230 billion. In 2019, it was up to 400 billion. With an unfortunately weak krona and high inflation, we can only wonder how many billions it would amount to in this situation. I think that too little is being said about what price tag it involves. The project is a high-risk project.

Madam Speaker! What Sweden needs is an investment in the existing railway, so that people can feel safe when they are standing on the platform and want to get from A to B. This government will work for that. I think that is very positive.

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Carina Ödebrink said that it is not about high-speed trains. But the decision to cancel the planning for, for example, Lund-Hässleholm is about high-speed trains. It is about canceling the planning. A formal decision by the government was needed to cancel the decisions that were previously made precisely because it is high-speed trains traveling at 320 kilometers per hour.

The assignment that Trafikverket has now received to look at other solutions, with a focus primarily on Lund-Hässleholm, does not exclude other things that have emerged during the course of the investigation, for example double tracks and four tracks. This is something that Trafikverket has also been involved in, and where there is a commitment in municipalities and regions. It is also highly relevant as a continuation. The assignments do not exclude that Trafikverket can propose new conventional tracks on the section. The same applies to Göteborg-Borås. But it can also turn out that there are other measures or combinations of measures that are needed. These assignments are about building on previously gained experiences. I believe that Member Ådahl pointed out 18 different investigations.

Now the focus is on commuting and freight traffic and not on high-speed trains and main lines for high-speed trains that are to connect the large cities. What is then the best, most cost-effective and fastest way to get a better connection on site? That is also why Trafikverket has been given a short time to respond. When it comes to Göteborg-Borås, I want to repeat that it must happen without the start of traffic being delayed.

When it comes to long-term planning, I am happy to have conversations with all parliamentary parties on this. Now it is important that Trafikverket is given the opportunity to investigate which conceivable solutions can achieve the much-needed capacity improvements in a cost-effective manner. This shall be done in accordance with the given mandate.

When it comes to other measures than those included in the current national plan for transport infrastructure, a proper basis is needed that the government can take a position on. It is exactly as usual before plan revisions; one weighs different things against each other. Several different measures may need to be weighed against each other. It is important that this is done in an orderly process with a sufficient basis. In that process, I would welcome a good dialogue, not least with the members of the Transport Committee and with the Swedish Parliament.

In the question regarding other measures needed for the entire infrastructure and transport system, Carina Ödebrink briefly mentioned at the end of her question roads, aviation, and also railways. Much of the existing stock of roads and railways was built long before 1970 and has major renovation needs. That is exactly it; it needs to be seen as part of a whole. We must also be able to afford to maintain it in order to be able to have good commuting and good freight traffic flows throughout the country.

Do I agree with myself? Does the government agree with the Member of Parliament? No, I have changed my mind. Member of Parliament Andreas Carlson changed his mind long before he became a government minister, precisely because the high-speed rail project risks pushing aside other significant and important measures when it comes to both new investment and maintenance.

Finally, it concerned the TEN-T maps. It is the central parts that have been deleted. That has been done for a reason, because it is also associated with a commitment to 2040. Now that we have cancelled that planning, it is reasonable and logical that it has consequences for that map.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking you for an interesting debate with many important contributions. I do, however, lack concrete thoughts and proposals from the responsible minister.

I shall raise a concluding question, as it is important. Daniel Helldén points out in his interpellation that when the planning for Borås-Linköping and Jönköping-Hässleholm is now scrapped, it means that 3 billion kronor are removed. Such a change, which alters the framework for investments in infrastructure, requires the Riksdag's approval. When does the Minister intend to present such a proposal?

I do not think that Andreas Carlson does not understand that more capacity is needed. I believe that it is also understood that the solution is not just to maintain and equip, but actually involves having two thoughts in one's head at the same time and being able to plan to build new.

Sweden is a country that in many respects is at the forefront, economically, socially and climatically. If we cannot tackle the large-scale social construction projects now, when then shall we do it, Madam Speaker? When then shall we be able to afford it? It is roughly like Emil in Lönneberga said: When in the world can I drink soda?

Reality does not stand still. The inhabitants, the companies, and everyone else in our country expect that politics takes responsibility for creating greater long-term perspective and predictability.

We will return to the debate. I look forward to it. And I will, like Senator Cato, repeat: Furthermore, I believe that new main lines should be built.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for a very good dialogue on an issue that may be larger than we think. It is about Swedish long-term competitiveness and having infrastructure that works.

The reason I have focused on the main lines and not spoken so much about Göteborg-Borås is that things are interconnected. Main lines for passenger traffic, work commuting, and freight traffic are a system that must function together.

Between Denmark and Germany, a new connection has begun to be built, Fehmarn Bält. It is to be completed in 2029. In all of northern Germany and likewise southern Denmark, it is seen as an opportunity for business development. The distance is reduced by 16 miles, I believe that is.

In the same way, we must think in Västra Götaland. When Jönköping is not linked with Borås and Gothenburg, we lose an incredible chance for regional expansion and business development. Västra Götaland, Småland, and Östergötland, yes, all of Sweden, will suffer in the long run from the main line project being scrapped.

I have two concluding questions for the Minister. When an investment decision is to be made, one usually has a large basis of consequences and calculations. But when one says no to something that has been ongoing for ten years, one should also have some form of basis of consequences and calculations for that decision. I wonder if the Minister has anything such.

I also wonder if the decision is in any way anchored with the contracting parties in the Sweden negotiation who for ten years have been deeply engaged in urban planning, business development, housing construction and infrastructure in their municipalities and regions.

I would like, as I have said, to thank you for a good debate.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not just about the government removing the high-speed rail planning. They are removing all possibility for planning where Sweden can receive EU grants in the future. It is about several billions. Theoretically, it could involve 100 billion that they have wasted. The pot is admittedly not that large, but the additional cost for, for example, a high-speed train versus a conventional train, we could get from the EU. If one builds for 250 kilometers per hour, which is the normal speed today on the railways, one can get the equivalent of what one of these sections would cost in its entirety.

This means that for example Lund-Hässleholm, Sweden will not receive any funds. It is embarrassing to see Sweden's map material today - and this is what the Minister shall sit with in the Council of Ministers! All countries, except for like Bulgaria, have a red line which means that one promises at least 250 kilometers per hour on their part of the European overall railway network. But Sweden only promises 160 kilometers per hour on the tracks we already have, and therefore we cannot get any money.

This means that future governments cannot get any money either. When Trafikverket has gone through its analyses of Lund-Hässleholm and wants to build two tracks, they cannot get any money. Borås-Göteborg cannot get money from the EU either. Ostlänken can get money, because that decision remains. But everything else the government has now removed.

I cannot understand how the government can do this. It is referred to as being about high-speed trains, but it is about all trains and furthermore about getting new main lines with co-financing from the EU. You have bungled that, and it is very strange.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for this debate, for the good dialogue and for the commitment that exists in the Swedish Riksdag and in large parts of Sweden regarding issues concerning infrastructure and specifically that which we have debated here today.

I understand that one can draw different conclusions and land in different positions. We have a good dialogue and understanding of each other's positions. When one has not understood or where the communication is perceived as too poor, one can get answers, and I hope I have been able to contribute to that during the debate today.

When it comes to the question of the 3 billion, that is the saving that can be made in the short term when one cancels the central parts of the planning. The large savings are long-term and concern the fact that if one had proceeded with this project, one would have risked pushing out other important infrastructure. I request to be able to return to the Riksdag regarding this.

It can also be the case that other cost increases in society that also affect infrastructure projects, which are long-term and expensive, eat up some of the space. I can also gladly return to that when I have a better basis.

The infrastructure shall not only be maintained and upgraded. The messages that have been given do not exclude new conventional tracks - not even on the Lund-Hässleholm section - and what has previously emerged in the work with Trafikverket, the municipalities, and the regions is part of the assignment. When the Fehmarn Bält connection opens, there will be more pressure on the capacity in our own infrastructure and railway network. This is included in the assignment to Trafikverket. And when it comes to the TEN-T maps, it is not illogical that the decision that has been made also has consequences.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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