Road traffic and vehicle issues

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the committee report on road traffic and vehicle issues. The report deals with over 100 motions from the general motion period and also contains 38 reservations. The report covers issues such as a fossil-free vehicle fleet, the availability of charging infrastructure, self-driving cars, longer and heavier trucks, the inspection of vehicles, vehicle speed cameras, historical vehicles and vintage cars, road signage, and so on.

Madam Speaker! We in Sweden are dependent on vehicles and functioning infrastructure for our companies and our trade to function. Vehicles are also necessary for people all over our country to be able to travel to their jobs and to healthcare, leisure activities, and so on.

Sweden is a large and elongated country, and it requires that all our modes of transport function - both air, boat, road and rail traffic. We need to do even more to take advantage of these opportunities and ensure that the modes of transport can be coordinated even further and that we can thereby utilize the infrastructure as effectively as possible.

Madam Speaker! Most of the motions in the report are answered by stating that the government is very aware of the problems that exist and is working on this at the Government Offices.

An important issue that is raised is the infrastructure for charging. Here, the problem today is a shortage of electricity but, above all, a shortage of sufficient charging capacity.

The work on this must be intensified. If Sweden is to manage the transition, we must both produce more electricity and powerfully expand the grid system. But it is also important that we allocate land and plan for more rest areas that can handle the charging of the large number of vehicles that will soon be in our society. The bottlenecks in the grid system must be built away to meet the needs of the future.

Road traffic and vehicle issues

Sweden also needs approximately twice as much electricity as today until 2040 if we are to manage to meet the need for just electricity. Sweden can then not shut down functioning nuclear power plants but must instead work on how production of stable electricity in the form of new nuclear power can be increased. That work is also ongoing in full at the Government Offices.

Madam Speaker! It must not be the case that the electricity shortage hampers the transition to a fossil-free vehicle fleet. In as little as three to four years, the number of chargeable vehicles in the country could exceed 1 million. This obliges and requires that the work on charging infrastructure and electricity production be accelerated.

The digitalization and the development of self-driving vehicles are also moving forward very quickly. Even here, it applies that we in Sweden are involved and helping so that neither the politics nor the regulatory framework hinders the development. This work is also ongoing at the Government Offices. The Government is well aware of the problem and is working on solutions.

Madam Speaker! Another important issue is how we help and facilitate for the country's vintage car owners, those who take care of our rolling cultural heritage and ensure that our children and grandchildren can experience what our older vehicles looked like and how they functioned. These vintage car enthusiasts do a great deal of cultural work in Sweden, and we must support and help them with that.

The parties are often in agreement here. Nevertheless, it is still the case that rules and bureaucracy hinder this hobby. I hope that the current government can deliver more than the previous government when it comes to facilitating things for the country's vintage car enthusiasts. It cannot be acceptable that imported vintage cars from the USA are to be treated as waste, which happened here in Sweden a few years ago. It was completely unacceptable.

Madam Speaker! In 2010, the inspection industry was deregulated, and we got more actors and more inspection stations. Flexibility increased for the country's vehicle owners. There are now more times and more stations to choose from. Competition also increased.

When Svensk Bilprovning removed its mobile stations in rural areas, it instead created a great concern for those who lost the proximity to their station. Here we need to review the regulatory framework to help ensure that vehicle owners in rural areas do not have an unreasonably long distance to their inspection station. We will monitor this closely and return to it.

Madam Speaker! The work to combat vehicle guards and ensure that they pay their debts has been ongoing for a longer period, but it is important that we continue to follow this closely in order to combat the illegal vehicle guards' activities with full force.

The work to classify more roads in BK4 should be accelerated. This is something that we from the Tidö parties will push for. We know that Trafikverket and the government are working on this, but the speed should increase so that more roads can be used for heavier vehicles.

More roads need to be classified as BK4 roads at a faster pace. Being able to drive with both longer and heavier vehicles strengthens Swedish competitiveness and is at the same time a good environmental choice, as emissions are reduced when more goods are transported per trip. Finland has worked with these issues, and what is possible in Finland must, of course, also be possible here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Another important issue addressed in the report is the possibility for motorcycles to drive in public transport lanes. This is currently regulated by the municipalities. More municipalities should take advantage of this possibility and, where possible, allow motorcycles to drive in public transport lanes.

Madam Speaker! Winter road maintenance is a problem and has been for a long time. It has received harsh criticism. Many accidents have been reported, often caused by poorly maintained roads. Winter road maintenance in Sweden does not function as it should. Trafikverket's procurement of winter road maintenance is something that really needs to be reviewed and scrutinized in detail. Sweden is dependent on safe and accessible roads even during the winter. Anything else is completely unacceptable. This is something we in the committee will monitor closely.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: The report addresses many important matters for the regulatory framework around our vehicles and roads to function. I know that the government is actively working on these issues and that this is to result in proposals for improvements which will then land here in the Riksdag.

I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the reservations.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Sten Berghedens speech. As preparation for this debate, I have gone back to read and look a little bit at how the debates have been previously.

It was a slightly different tone from Sten Bergheden now, and I can willingly admit that I agree with most of what the member said in his speech. All modes of transport are important, and we need to ensure that all modes of transport link together so that we can achieve a transport system that is as efficient as possible and reach the transport policy goals. We need more charging infrastructure and electricity production. We need to increase the production of alternative fuels and so on.

But one thing that I noted I did not hear anything about, Madam Speaker, was the climate and how we are to reach the climate goals.

Given the Sweden Democrats-led government's decision to abolish or significantly reduce the reduction obligation, I would like to hear what Member Bergheden has for answers and solutions on how Sweden should reach the climate goals with a reduced reduction obligation.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Carina Ödebrink, for the questions! The climate is, of course, the part that we are constantly working on. There are more things in the report that I could highlight, but the content is quite extensive, so I selected a few parts.

I know, just as I said, that precisely the climate, fossil-free fuels and the question of meeting our long-term goals are priorities for the government. This is something that is constantly worked on. It is so certain and secure for me that I did not need to highlight that part. Instead, I tried to highlight the parts that we need to put even more effort into and that might be forgotten. I know that the climate is among the top parts of the government's work. I am completely calm with this, and I have great confidence that our government constantly keeps the climate as an important part.

The committee members raised the reduction obligation and wondered how we are to manage that part. I am quite sure that we must have a functioning infrastructure and vehicles that can transport both goods and people around the country.

Then it is not reasonable for us in Sweden to settle on the highest reduction obligation in the entire EU. Not even Germany settles there. With the proposal of 6 percent we now have higher than what Germany is at. If one were to strictly examine who has reduced the most in these cases, there are probably more countries around Europe that have gone down significantly more.

I believe that Sweden must also manage both the countryside, transport, and other things. We cannot tax these people and companies to death with unreasonably high taxes on fuel.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! But if the climate issue and the question of how we are to reach the goals we have committed ourselves to are so important for the Moderaterna and the Sweden Democrat-led government, I still think it is quite strange that it is not mentioned with a single word in Sten Bergheden's contribution.

One can discuss the level of the reduction obligation, but both the Climate Policy Council and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency say that the reduction obligation is absolutely crucial. If we are to meet the goals, we need to maintain a continued high level of the reduction obligation.

I did not perceive that I received any answer from Sten Bergheden to my questions. How is the government now going to guarantee that the climate goals are met? And how does the government ensure that the lowered level in the reduction obligation guarantees a sufficient level of biofuels to secure Sweden's self-sufficiency? I think those are two quite clear and concrete questions that I had wished for answers to.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member! It is of course the case that the government is sitting and working on the questions you are asking. Work is being done intensively to produce proposals on how we shall meet the climate goals and at the same time still ensure that we do not penalize either the countryside, agriculture, companies or private individuals around the country. You will soon receive an answer on this part.

The goals are fixed, and we are actively working on this moving forward. I am confident about this, and I trust that we have a government that is working on the issues. I know that we have a government that is working on the issues, and I feel completely confident in being able to request to return with exact measures to fully meet the climate goals for Sweden's part.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Road traffic and vehicle issues - it is a rather substantial report where our motions from the general motion period are handled, but where there is also a great deal of knowledge to take in. So to you who are listening, I would like to say: Here is a book tip! The report is on the Riksdag's website and is called TU10.

It is worth reading if one is interested in which issues we in the committee discuss in different ways and in the various investigations that the previous government has initiated. It is also about the active work that the previous transport committee did, in which, among others, member Bergheden was involved. He pushed hard for a number of issues that he now seems most satisfied to be able to monitor and continue working on.

Madam Speaker! From the Center Party's side, we have twelve reservations in the report. It shows a great commitment to the issues. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 3.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of visiting Volvo AB in Skövde together with Muharrem Demirok, the party leader of the Center Party. It is incredibly engaging and inspiring, but also a bit frustrating, to witness the green transition that our industries are currently in the midst of. They have to face a government with the volatility that arises when different types of support are withdrawn - not least connected to heavy vehicles, as is the case in this instance. It is therefore about incredibly large investments. That volatility has never favored growth, and it has never favored stable conditions. It has also not favored a belief in a better future connected to the green transition but also to competitiveness and increased growth.

In this area, there are three clusters in the world, and one of them is located in Sweden. It is absolutely fantastic! Therefore, I think that politics must take this seriously, meet it fully, and see what investments need to be made so that this continues to be the position we want also in the green transition, namely to be first.

It is about technological shifts, research and innovations, but also about rules, as the previous member pointed out. There must be clear objectives. It makes me concerned to see how the government mostly monitors issues and possibly considers our proposals to be answered by the fact that they are working on the issue.

We know that we need to strengthen the steering towards more environmental vehicles in vehicle purchases. In that case, it is extremely unfortunate to do as the government does and withdraw that possibility. It is claimed that it has not shown up in the various new car figures and so on. But sometimes it is said that everything can be proven with different forms of statistics and the way one measures. I think it is extremely important that this is examined, because then one sees that this inconsistency does not lead to good conditions moving forward.

We need further introduction and production of fossil-free fuels. One issue that is extremely current right now is biogas. From my home district, if I may call it that, Skaraborg, one was now prepared to invest hundreds of millions in producing new biogas. Not everything lies on the government's table; I am fully aware of that. But the government's handling leads to uncertainty, and not being able to handle this with greater clarity and certainty obviously creates concern. It is not impressive.

We also need to improve the possibility to convert, and here green deductions can be an important part. It is not just one technology forward that is needed, but several different technologies forward - both to create a breadth in our innovations and our development and for the security thinking we need to have ahead of high alert. In that case, it is extremely important not to put all eggs in one basket. But from the government's side, it sounds as if it is only electrification that is the way forward.

I like to think positively. When the previous speaker says that we should not be worried about climate issues and that the climate goals will be fully delivered, I really look forward to the climate action plan that will arrive in the autumn – I hope it comes early in the autumn – and which is to show the way forward. Right now, however, the tools in the toolbox are not fully there to do that.

I am, however, worried that other parts will have to pay for this. Then it will be about forest and land. I am surprised that the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna agree to a policy where one lowers the reduction obligation in a way that shows that one is bowing to other parties.

Member of the Board Bergheden says that one is taxed to death. There are actually other ways forward than to lower the reduction obligation if one wants to lower the price at the pump.

Centerpartiet has presented what we call Tanka svenskt! One can lower the VAT on biofuels to the lowest level. One can increase the supply of biofuels. One can lower the reduction obligation fees. One can also remove the carbon tax on biofuels within the reduction obligation. There are actually measures to be taken, without putting the climate at risk, which would yield approximately 4 kronor at the pump. It would have been interesting to listen to the discussions that caused one to lock themselves into only a lowered reduction obligation.

Madam Speaker! There are many reservations in the report - I mentioned our twelve - regarding everything from winter road maintenance to self-driving vehicles, fossil-free vehicle fleets, longer and heavier vehicles and functionality in different ways.

I agree with the previous speaker regarding the reinforcement of the road network, that a coherent road network connected to BK4 is needed and the possibility for trucks to be both heavier and longer. Just as the member said, it is about achieving a number of positive effects there – to reduce accident risks, carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution and other environmental impacts.

There is much that could be said. Road traffic and vehicle issues are very important for the development in all of Sweden and for everyone's opportunity for mobility, not least in the countryside. That one then removes tools, that one does not want to let the way of transporting people and goods be a part of the climate transition, makes me saddened.

Madam Speaker! There is much we need to do. There is much the government needs to do. I also look forward to propositions starting to arrive at the Riksdag. The government has soon had a year. There was a lot of material and much that the previous Traffic Committee pushed forward and initiated. Now it is up to be proven whether we will reach the climate goals and also do so by investing in road traffic and vehicle issues within this area.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Ulrika Heie!

As many in the Riksdag know, I was not born and raised in Sweden. I came to Sweden when I was 23 years old. The image I had was that I was coming to a country where decisions are made rationally, by wise people and with logic.

The image I have today is exactly the opposite. One example is Sweden's climate goals, which have essentially been developed by Miljöpartiet under the government at that time and which are fundamentally based on unsustainable targets that are extremely difficult to reach and which will hit our economy and the ordinary person who goes to work, comes home and just wants to provide for their family, extremely hard.

My question to Member Ulrika Heie is: Has the Center Party taken into account the economic aspects of Sweden's climate goals for ordinary people?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rashid Farivar, for the question! I can only say: Yes. It is absolutely self-evident that we have taken economic aspects into account. For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we have a responsibility to follow the development we see regarding the climate transition.

Rashid Farivar says that we would not make decisions with rationality and logic. Here, the absolute majority stood behind our climate goals when they were adopted. And it is clear that they are not made on feeling. It is clear that they are made with prerequisites for how one can ensure that it becomes economically sustainable in different ways. Therefore, we have worked with green deductions and with various supports, for example the bonus-malus system, to ensure and use politics as a catalyst for a positive development.

I think calling it irrational is extremely unfortunate. It is about us providing conditions for the future with new knowledge, with research and with technical development, something that I also know the member has worked a great deal with. It is important that those parts receive continued conditions.

So it is true. I also took up quite extensively in my speech how the Center Party points to other paths where both climate goals and a reduced cost for and increased production of biofuels take into account individuals' finances. Above all, it is also important for us as pioneers, an important factor in being able to show the way forward. I think that we have a responsibility because we both can and want to.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! That is exactly what I am saying. How can one believe that all decisions made in Sweden's Riksdag are rational and logical? I think that is illogical thinking. There are many examples in history where different parliaments have made illogical and irrational decisions. In what way is it rational to shut down functioning nuclear reactors and then invest in electrification when we have a shortage of electricity? In what way is it rational to make the production of cement more difficult and then want to build wind turbines? In what way is it rational to drive high levels of biofuel, which largely comes from animal remains, into fuel tanks? In what way is all of this rational?

I strongly oppose the member's way of referring to our children and grandchildren in this debate. I can also mention how Muharrem Demirok expressed himself in the TV party leader debate: The announcement - i.e., regarding the reduction obligation - was also the death sentence for the Swedish climate goals. You have killed them and buried them. How are you going to be able to look the children in the eye, he also asked.

I think this way of reasoning is completely wrong.

Many irrational decisions have been made in this chamber during the previous government. That is exactly what I mean.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It is important to speak about why it is important to think about the future, about our children and youth, and about creating faith in the future. I am, in fact, extremely concerned if our young people grow up and feel that we do not take the climate threat, which we actually see coming in different forms with extreme weather and other things, seriously or that we do not make logical decisions to create a better future.

The Speaker calls another logic illogical. We can have a discussion in another context about what is logical and illogical. It is obvious that there are different logics one can follow when it comes to this.

For me, the objective becomes incredibly important. I hope that it can be shared by many. We have a responsibility to transition in different ways. The member mentioned slaughter waste and animal products in biofuels. It can well be good to use such things that can be regarded as waste and do something with them that we can benefit from.

My view, however, is that we can create the conditions for Swedish raw materials to be part of the transition forward. Therefore, it is important, for example, with what Peter Norman has concluded regarding biofuels linked to aviation fuel and other parts where we can demonstrate that we can utilize the raw materials that are available.

Sometimes it is economically profitable for companies to do things in other ways. But here there are incentives that we can make decisions about and which give us the conditions to continue to be at the forefront and be part of the green transition. That is what the business community expects. I think that future generations also expect it. The member himself mentioned the common man. Let me therefore speak about the common man, who is well both children and the elderly. It is important for everyone.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! The member gave an interesting speech. I had not intended to take a reply to Ulrika Heie, but in her speech she takes up that after a visit to Skövde she wants to address that the vehicle cluster in Sweden wants the policy to create the best conditions for the climate transition and that it is a collaboration. What the vehicle cluster requests most of all is more electricity, more power and more charging infrastructure. It is, after all, they who develop the vehicles.

If Member of Parliament Heie from Centerpartiet now wants to give the automotive cluster good conditions for the climate transition, I wonder why they voted for the decommissioning of several nuclear power plants during the last parliamentary term. It created exactly the energy crisis that Western Sweden is experiencing and which is now the biggest uncertainty factor for the entire automotive cluster in Western Sweden and Gothenburg. They do not have access to enough electricity.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It is always pleasant to receive a positive response. Helena Gellerman said that it was an interesting speech. That is heartening.

The vehicle cluster I mentioned is the heavy vehicle companies, including Volvo AB. They mentioned three things. The member is completely right that it is about energy. But it is also about competence supply and about infrastructure. All three are extremely important in order to manage in the future.

When it comes to energy, there is much to say. The member is also from Västsverige. We both know that there is an enormous need. In Skaraborg, where I come from, I believe that a third of the energy production we need is own production. We also know that more will be needed in the future.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we had the opportunity to meet the Governor. He clearly demonstrated the need for additional green energy and the possibilities of wind power in Western Sweden. Now, some wind turbines south of Gothenburg have become the subject of a positive treatment by the government. But we are waiting for a decision regarding parks also north of Gothenburg. They are extremely important. They can actually correspond to the energy production from a nuclear reactor. There is an opportunity here to work entirely with renewable energy. I see that as important moving forward.

We have had broad agreements on energy solutions. I would wish that initiatives were taken for that in different ways. There is an opportunity for the government parties to continue to have broad agreements in the energy area. That would be positive.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even though I did not receive an answer to my question.

There is probably quite a large consensus in the Committee on Transport that we must invest in charging infrastructure and facilitate the supply of skills for the enormous transition we face regarding road transport and also other transports.

The member of the board raises exactly the question that I am addressing; we need more electricity and more power in Western Sweden. She also points out that the government has now taken a positive stance toward building wind turbines that correspond to a nuclear reactor. The electricity from that wind power will perhaps arrive in ten years, when it is finished. But Western Sweden needs energy now. In 2025, Northvolt is to start its factory.

If the Center Party had not made the decision to shut down so many nuclear reactors together with the other parties that made that decision, it would not have been a problem. Then the energy would have been there. The entire vehicle cluster in Western Sweden would have avoided that uncertainty factor and could have gone all-in on producing batteries and their cars.

I return to my question. How is it that the Center Party stood behind shutting down all the nuclear reactors during the last parliamentary term, which has now put all of Western Sweden in the energy crisis that is being experienced?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Gellerman, for the clarification of the question!

At the end of the 2000s, the Alliance government made a broad energy agreement. There, the Center Party actually took a different stance on nuclear power than we had had much earlier. It is common knowledge that our two parties, which nevertheless lie somewhat in the middle of Swedish politics, have had quite different views on parts of the energy policy through the years. But we actually made compromises in the agreement that Alliance government 1 had.

There are different descriptions of why nuclear power has not paid off and why it has been removed. There is an old referendum idea in the background but obviously also new technology and so on.

The member of Parliament says that it will take ten years before we get electricity from the offshore wind farms. But, member of Parliament, it will still take even longer before new nuclear power plants are in place?

The nuclear power companies also say that there was no possibility to continue operating the nuclear power plants fully. We already said earlier, in a joint agreement, that they would be given the opportunity to make upgrades and so on. And it has well been important to provide those opportunities.

Once again - I would wish that one took greater responsibility for the whole and saw the renewable in the way that, not least the Minister for the Environment, who belongs to the member's party, usually highlights on many occasions.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating road traffic and vehicle issues here in the chamber. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

We have 10,000 trucking companies in our country. One of them is in Motala, and I visited it a few weeks ago. It was very interesting to listen to them and to discuss. The company sees many opportunities and also challenges ahead. The trucking company is investing heavily in fossil-free transport. When we discussed it a bit, it was a question that they really emphasized: the concern over whether there will be electricity in the future. If they are to dare to invest in buying those electric trucks, there must, of course, be electricity available. I can understand their concern.

We have had a government that put all its eggs in one basket and shut down reactor after reactor. The new government has a different policy, where nuclear power and hydropower are seen as predictable base power that can be supplemented with wind and solar energy. It is important that there is electricity even on those days when it does not blow.

Madam Speaker! Several measures have been taken in recent years to strengthen climate work, but more must be done to ensure electricity production in Sweden and to achieve the full effect of the ongoing electrification of the vehicle fleet. The government is working on this. Furthermore, money is being invested in the budget for more charging stations for heavy vehicles as well as hydrogen refueling infrastructure. That investment is only the beginning, and there will be more investments ahead.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the previous government failed to reduce the large maintenance debt that has built up regarding the country's roads. According to Svenskt Näringsliv, the total maintenance debt is estimated at 77.5 billion this year, and it is expected to rise to a staggering 113 billion in 2033 if nothing is done. It is an incredibly important signal to all the country's drivers and all those who live and work in the countryside that this government, together with the coalition partner, will prioritize safe and drivable roads throughout the country.

When speaking with drivers from different parts of Sweden, questions often arise regarding winter road maintenance, and it is said that it has become worse over time. It is important that Trafikverket follows up on the activities surrounding our roads and that they live up to the high requirements that are set. During 2023, more than 14 billion kronor have been allocated for the operation and maintenance of the state roads, and we in the committee will monitor the issue, just as my parliamentary colleague said earlier.

Madam Speaker! Now Sweden finally has a government and a coalition partner that has stood its ground regarding the reduction obligation. It shall be lowered from today's 30.5 to 6 percent by the new year. We believe that it is not possible to continue punishing companies and people who live in the countryside - for that is what it is about. With the policy pursued by the previous government, the plan was for the fossil-free component to become 66 percent. A liter of diesel would then cost up to 32-33 kronor per liter at the pump. We are sending an important signal that all of Sweden shall live.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Today I managed to get a word in. The member otherwise has a peculiar ability to quickly and forcefully conclude his speeches - but now I managed. I am, in fact, very eager to ask questions to the member, who belongs to the same party as both the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure.

I have two questions. The member mentioned winter road maintenance himself and the importance of it functioning. I am curious about how the Infrastructure Minister's party views how one can get winter road maintenance to function in a better way. There are thoughts, not least in northern Sweden where the problem is somewhat larger, on reviewing the possibility that those who manage winter road maintenance could be able to work for both Trafikverket on state roads and for private road associations. Is that something the member believes is the way forward to solve the problems linked to winter road maintenance in northern Sweden? That was question number one.

Now comes question number two. The member says that one should strengthen the climate work but refers almost exclusively to electrification. Hydrogen was mentioned, in fact, but otherwise it was about electrification. Is it not putting all eggs in one basket to focus solely on that part? What does the member say about what the biogas producers, in particular, experience due to the problems that have arisen in that area? I would like to hear more about that from the member's side because both the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure belong to the Christian Democrats, Magnus Oscarsson's party. How does one intend to strengthen the possibilities for biogas production?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ulrika Heie, for the questions! We had a discussion about time in the committee today, so I tried to keep it brief. I noted that the member's speech was exactly seven minutes long, and that was good.

I think we can absolutely help each other in improving the roads. The proposal that the member mentioned is very interesting. It is a major concern that people experience that the roads have become worse. As I pointed out in my speech, a lot of money is spent on maintenance. The government therefore sees the importance of Trafikverket ensuring that it is actually being managed. Is that not true, or is it true? It must naturally be tightened up. Regardless of whether one talks about Norrland, Västergötland, Östergötland or roads elsewhere, this is incredibly important. In the near future, we in the committee will discuss this with the trucking industry, and it will be a very important meeting.

This must be followed up. One must ensure that order is established on the roads and that there are no traffic hazards or even death traps. There is actually talk of such things. I look forward to getting this done, and just as the member from Moderaterna raised and as the committee intends, we will of course follow up on this from the government's side.

I will answer the second question in the next round.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Then I may not be able to add the two questions I had intended, as I am extremely eager for the member to answer the question regarding biogas production. But I would also like to ask a question about the maintenance debt. I have taken note of the same report as the member regarding 77 billion in maintenance debt and that it will become 113 billion if nothing is done during this planning period.

Is it a promise from the Christian Democrats in today's debate that the maintenance debt will be resolved during the upcoming review of the plan moving forward? Is that how we can view what the member says regarding the money needed to address the maintenance debt?

When it comes to biogas production, I would like to hear in what way the member's party and the member themselves intend to work so that Swedish biogas production will receive sustainable conditions. As it stands now, the biogas producers have a fantastic patience in light of the development that has occurred in the area, but the blow concerning the fact that costs will be raised obviously affects things enormously. This applies in particular to the new projects that are underway.

I know that the member is involved in rural and agricultural issues, and here it is about biogas production that provides good fertilizer for agriculture. I therefore think that the member is doubly committed to issues regarding biogas in order to also be able to provide the right conditions. I look forward to the answer regarding the biogas production and to hearing even more about in what way the member intends to work to address the maintenance debt.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ulrika Heie again for the question.

The Speaker asked about the promise. I can at least give as a promise that we as a government will work much harder to reduce the debt than the previous government did. Centerpartiet was also part of that.

We see how much money is missing and that the previous government did not do this. It was not a set table that the current government came to; it was a table that was not set. We had to ensure that we got this done, and that is what the government has done in the first budgets that have been presented. I can at least give the promise that in this case we will do much more than the previous government did.

The member also raised the issue of biogas, which is an incredibly important issue. Just as the member says, one has their heart in this. We know what that means, especially for those people who perhaps have invested their entire lives in getting this started and did so based on the promises that were given when the whole thing was built up. They received the green light from both the previous government and the EU that they could just go ahead. But all of a sudden, someone from the EU side says that it is not possible and that it is improper.

This is obviously very serious. I have meetings several times a week where we primarily discuss this and address how the problems can be solved for the people who have invested so much. This is serious.

I agree with the member that if it is not resolved in a good way, the entire biogas plant and the production in our country are at risk, which would be very, very serious.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The report we are now debating deals with motions on road traffic and vehicle issues within a number of different areas from the general motion period. I intend to focus on some parts that we Social Democrats consider particularly important. Initially, I want to clarify that we stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 1 regarding a fossil-free vehicle fleet. I will return to that.

We Social Democrats prioritize a fair, sustainable, and modern transport policy that contributes to the climate transition and strengthens Sweden's competitiveness. If we are to succeed with this, the policy needs to create long-term conditions and rules of the game for the market, but policy and the business community also need to join forces so that we can move away from the dependence on fossil fuels more quickly. This is particularly important in the security policy situation the world finds itself in today.

The Climate Act has as a long-term goal that Sweden shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045 and that greenhouse gases from domestic transport shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010. At the beginning of the year, the EU Parliament also reached a decision on a ban on the sale of new cars with petrol or diesel engines from 2035.

Domestic transport accounts for almost one-third of Sweden's total greenhouse gas emissions. Road traffic accounts for the largest share of emissions. More electric cars and an increase in the share of biofuels due to a higher reduction obligation contribute to reduced emissions, but it is not enough.

In March, the Climate Policy Council submitted its annual report where the government's collective policy is evaluated in relation to the climate goals that the Riksdag and the government have established. The fact is that our way of life has resulted in a rapidly rising global average temperature with extreme weather events as a consequence. In the recent past, we have been able to witness early and extreme heat in southern Europe. In northern Italy, torrential rains and floods with several deaths have occurred. Climate change is here and now and requires powerful actions here and now, but also a changed behavior from all of us if we are to save the planet for future generations.

The Climate Policy Council states that Sweden's emissions need to decrease faster than they have done so far. The report is clear regarding the government's policy so far: "The policy that the new government has presented so far is not sufficient to reach the climate goals for 2030. Instead of quickly reducing emissions, the changes decided and announced so far will, on the contrary, also according to the government's own assessment, increase emissions in the near term. This applies primarily to domestic transport and work machinery. - - - It would be remarkable and serious if the reduction now were not only to proceed too slowly, but were to turn in the opposite direction."

Seven of the Riksdag's parties stood behind the decision on the reduction obligation. Only the Sweden Democrats were opponents then. The Christian Democrats called the reduction obligation a cornerstone of the Christian Democrats' climate policy. That was then. Now it is a different story when we have a Sweden Democrat-led government.

The decision to significantly lower the reduction obligation from the turn of the year has been met with very sharp criticism. The consequences will be increased climate emissions, and the promised price reduction is judged by the fuel industry to be unrealistic.

The government also creates uncertainty in the business sector where large investments are being made to increase the production of sustainable biofuels. Instead, upcoming production and green jobs now risk ending up in markets outside of Sweden.

Why was the reduction obligation needed? It is about reaching our climate goals and about creating jobs in the green transition. It is also about strengthening our own preparedness and security. A higher demand for fossil fuels will mean an increased dependence on an uneasy world. Both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Climate Policy Council are clear that a reduction obligation at a high level is required for us to manage the transition.

The Social Democrats' goal is for Sweden to be the world's first fossil-free welfare country and a leader in the green transition. Therefore, we need to increase – not decrease – the pace of reducing emissions in the transport sector. It is not possible to back out of the future.

The climate bonus led to a sharp increase in the number of newly registered rechargeable vehicles. We need to accelerate the electrification of transport, expand the charging infrastructure and increase the production of electricity to transition and reach our goals.

With this said, I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1.

Let me also say something about the deregulation of vehicle inspections. It was expected to lead to lower prices, more choice for consumers, and higher quality. The Swedish National Audit Office conducted a review of the deregulation in 2021. It showed that while competition had indeed increased, the price for the customer had also increased significantly, by as much as 56 percent since 2010. During the same period, the consumer price index increased by 10 percent. Availability in sparsely populated regions is also almost unchanged. Socially important services must be available throughout the country, and therefore we want to review how a re-regulation of vehicle inspections could proceed.

We live in uncertain and anxious times. The climate crisis and a war in our vicinity affect people's everyday lives. Many households are today extremely economically pressured. The task of politics and the government is then to demonstrate a way forward as far as possible so that we can manage the climate transition and facilitate things for those who have it most difficult economically and have the least margins. The efforts of the Sverigedemokratiskt-led government so far unfortunately do not show that these tasks are being taken as seriously as they deserve.

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Carina Ödebrink! I requested a reply on the same line as when I requested a reply to Ulrika Heies' speech, and I say the same thing now: It is characteristic of Sweden to want to lead the way and show the path - to want to save the planet and be a world leader - without taking into account the economic and social aspects of the decisions made in the Riksdag.

I want to focus on the reduction obligation, which was a focus area for the member. There is evidence that clearly shows that the underlying resource and economic reality makes your reduction calculation completely impossible, Carina Ödebrink. According to the state's public inquiry SOU 2023:15, Sweden's reduction obligation alone consumes more than half of all of Europe's HVO biofuels. Not even if we brought in the entire world's biofuels would it save Sweden's climate goals. The reduction obligation also produces counterproductive effects economically and environmentally.

How do Member Carina Ödebrink and the Social Democrats view these effects of the reduction obligation?

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! First, I must say that I am immensely happy and proud to be part of a movement that wants to save the planet. I am part of a movement that sees how the world looks today, with extreme heat and floods resulting from our way of life. I am incredibly happy that I belong to a movement that sees this and wants to do something about it – that wants to create a better tomorrow and a better world for the population of the Earth and Sweden.

The question to Rashid Farivar is what his vision is for saving the planet. Sweden has, after all, committed to reaching a number of climate goals. I think the question falls back on the member himself. I perceive that the member is presenting facts, but what is the solution?

We see that Sweden must transition. Domestic production must increase, and the charging infrastructure must be expanded. A lot of different things need to be done for us in Sweden to reach the climate goals we have committed to reaching. I would like to hear how Rashid Farivar envisions how the question of how Sweden should reach the climate goals is to be solved, given that the Sverigedemokraterna actually wanted to abolish the reduction obligation entirely. Now it will be hardly noticeable for people at the pump.

So, please tell me how you solve this, Rashid Farivar!

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Carina Ödebrink!

I can start by saying that I have no ambition to save the planet. I don't even believe that the planet needs to be saved from Swedes.

I return to my question with a quote from the investigation I mentioned. "The raw materials for HVO" - it stands for hydrogenated vegetable oil - "mostly consist of agricultural crops or waste streams from the food industry, such as animal fats or frying oils. In recent years, Sweden has claimed a large share of the global HVO production and Drivkraft Sverige estimated that in 2018 Sweden used approximately 30 percent of the global production of HVO, or 55 percent of the production within the EU."

According to the Swedish Parliament's investigation service's report 2023:70, a full 63 percent of Sweden's HVO in 2021 consisted of slaughter waste from all corners of the world. It was transported from all over the world to Sweden to be fueled in our cars so that we could be able to drive around. In what way is that environmentally friendly? In what way will it save the planet?

It is extremely distressing that one describes the reduction obligation as the difference between life and climatic death. I am very proud of our work together with the government to abolish the reduction obligation. I would have preferred to see that we abolished it completely – that it was totally 0 percent – because we need biofuels for those industries or means of transport that cannot run on electricity, for example shipping and aviation. There we need biofuels.

I ask the same question as I asked the member earlier.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Actually, I might content myself with saying something about what Rashid Farivar began his second reply with, namely that he has no intention of saving the planet. I can only regret this, and then there is actually nothing more to say. I find it astonishing that such a statement comes from a member of the Swedish Riksdag.

Sweden has been, is, and will hopefully also in the future be an example in the world - a country that leads the way, that carries out the green transition and that ensures that the green jobs end up here in Sweden. That is something I am proud and happy about, and I think we should continue with that. I will stop there, Madam Speaker, because I do not think there is anything more to add to this exchange of remarks.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Carina Ödebrink, for your speech! The member mentioned the Christian Democrats, so I felt a little bit that I had to request a reply and defend what we have said and done.

We thought as the member said – I don't remember if we called it exactly a cornerstone, but we thought it was important. At the same time, I think it is important to be humble and be able to say that something perhaps did not turn out to be the best for the country. When one sees that it is so, I think one should be able to say that it was not the right path without wanting to rethink. That is why we say that we do not want such a strong reduction obligation as the one that was decided. It went wrong, and we think that it is probably better to go down to the level we have now decided on, that is to say 6 percent.

The member spoke about the economically difficult conditions that many are now affected by due to how things look in our country. Part of this is, naturally, that fuel costs are really skyrocketing. With these prices and with the idea that the previous government had of raising the reduction obligation from 30.5 up to 66 percent, we would be talking about somewhere around 32-33 kronor per liter to refuel. Who is it then that is hit hardest? Yes, as the member himself touched upon, it is those who live under difficult economic conditions. But many think that it is simply not feasible.

My question to the member is: Does the member know what percentage of the fossil-free [energy/products] that is purchased is not from Sweden?

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I am very pleased that Magnus Oscarsson took a point on my speech. I had intended to take a point on his speech but did not have time. Ulrika Heie did that. But I am glad that I was given the opportunity for this.

Of course one can rethink, and over time things can change. But it was, after all, seven parties in the chamber that stood behind the climate framework, the Climate Act, and the establishment of a climate policy council. It was a very important decision in the Christian Democrats' climate policy. It was only five years ago. We are not talking about ten or twenty years ago. It is still in the near term.

There can be different opinions on this in politics. But the announcement from the Sverigedemokrater-led government was met with very sharp criticism. It was not only from us Social Democrats. We questioned what consequences it will have. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the government's own Climate Policy Council say that it is an important tool to reach the goal.

Before my speaking time runs out, I must also address that a lowered reduction obligation would be a support for the economically weak groups. I believe that is a pipe dream of Magnus Oscarsson. The fuel industry itself says that it is unrealistic. It can increase demand, and that causes prices to rise instead. If one wants to support those who are having a hard time, there are other ways to do it.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, I did not receive an answer to my question. Therefore, I will answer it myself, so that the member may know. In any case, the answer is: 80-85 percent of the fossil-free products that are purchased for Sweden today are not from Sweden but are purchased from abroad. They are purchased from Brazil and Indonesia.

One still has to include this when we are to have as much involvement as 66 percent, which was the previous government's idea. I do not take from thin air that it will cost around 33 kronor per liter. That was well-established. I believe even SVT took it up. It is not something I am just making up.

It is as clear as day that it will be very tough for people regardless of where they live, reside, and work in the country. I am talking about farming companies. They have said that it is a fateful choice for them. It is about how it will go for them if we are to continue with the high reduction obligation.

People have contacted me and said: It is no longer possible to travel to work with this price. It is clear that it will affect a huge amount that the price will be so high. But now we have a new government that has made the decision that we will not have up to 66 percent but down to 6 percent.

We believe that it will affect people who live and work in the countryside. Our farmers say that it is very important that we lower the reduction obligation. This also applies to people who are having a hard time financially, as the member himself mentioned. It will become a bit easier for them with this. I am convinced of that.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! What Magnus Oscarsson expresses makes me a little concerned. The government has now come out and said that the reduction obligation shall be lowered. I do not know if Magnus Oscarsson has listened to the radio and read in the newspapers. There, the fuel industry says, among other things, that these are unrealistic expectations. In any case, there is a risk that it will not do as much for the price as Magnus Oscarsson and the government believe.

We can take Poland as an example. There, they have the low level that the government now wants to introduce. It has not affected the price to the dramatic extent that Magnus Oscarsson believes it will do here in Sweden. That makes me a little concerned.

We import many raw materials to manufacture biogas. Waste is today a commodity on a market. I do not take that as revenue for doing nothing. There is no reason for me to say: Then we shall not have biogas, because we import far too much.

We must ensure that we strengthen Swedish industry and our own production. This is particularly important given the situation we find ourselves in today, with a war in our vicinity and a climate crisis. We must not be dependent on states that are villainous. With the government's decision to lower the reduction obligation, we make ourselves dependent on oil-producing countries that are also dictatorships. It is concerning.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report Roads, Traffic and Vehicle Issues.

Madam Speaker! There is an issue that completely dominates the area of roads and vehicles today. It is the climate transition. It has a special focus on our vehicle fleet and the expansion of the number of charging points. Road transport accounts for 90 percent of emissions within the transport area, so the Liberals' focus to reduce emissions lies here.

In a short time, the entire vehicle fleet will be replaced. I have worked with research and development of vehicles for 35 years. I have seen how electronics took over in cars and the first steps towards self-driving cars. It is still a major challenge. But I think that the replacement of the vehicle fleet over 15 years is significantly larger due to the time aspect.

The challenge for society consists of establishing a charging infrastructure that stays ahead of the increase in the number of electric cars. For the vehicle manufacturers, the challenge is to produce cars that can be sold at reasonable prices, so that more people can afford an electric car.

Both challenges are complex and require cooperation. However, we are on the right track. We have 5 million passenger cars in Sweden. That is quite constant. In 2022, 162,000 rechargeable cars were sold, which is an increase of 20 percent. The share of rechargeable cars of the sales was 56 percent. The corresponding figure last year was 45 percent. It is going completely in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! The competition between car manufacturers will press vehicle prices step by step. It is complex, as for example raw materials for batteries and semiconductors are and probably will be in short supply during the period.

In order to focus on the climate issue, easy-to-understand purchasing information should be developed where the customer can easily compare different cars based on climate emissions, both from a life cycle perspective and during operation. This also takes into account how, above all, the battery but also, for example, the steel for the car's body has been produced.

The share of sold rechargeable cars needs to steadily increase, and the current economic crisis risks breaking the positive trend. The forecast says, however, that an electric car will cost as much as a fossil-fueled car approximately 2025-2026, and then sales will accelerate - not least because the second-hand value of fossil-fueled cars will likely fall as an electric car becomes cheaper to drive, which further improves the economics when purchasing an electric car. This will become a positive spiral for the climate. But we are not there yet, so it is important to follow the market closely.

When it comes to heavy vehicles, the number of electric vehicles is steadily increasing. The truck premium remains, however, as the proportion of new electric trucks is still low.

Madam Speaker! The second challenge is the charging infrastructure for our road transport. This is the single most important challenge and the most difficult measure for the transport sector to be able to transition, eliminate its climate emissions, and reach the transport goal: that emissions from our transports in 2030 shall have decreased by 70 percent compared to 2010.

Today, there is a range of supports and subsidies for the installation of charging boxes at villas and for charging infrastructure along our roads and at depots. Additionally, there is Klimatklivet for support for charging points at multi-family dwellings.

This question is also complex as it presupposes that a sufficient amount of electricity can be delivered in a short time for charging where we live, travel, and work. Producing and distributing electricity involves long lead times, and with the 15 years we have for the transition of the vehicle fleet, this will become a bottleneck. The government is working focusedly to catch up on the previous government's wrong decision regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power in southern Sweden, which is the reason for the energy crisis we now see in Western Sweden and southern Sweden.

The Liberals believe in the idea that the polluter should pay. Since the lifespan of a passenger car is currently an average of 19 years, fossil-free fuels are needed to reduce emissions from today's gasoline- and diesel-powered cars, which will affect the fuel price. However, the production of fossil-free fuels must keep pace with the blending so that the fuel price is not significantly raised such that people's work commuting is hindered.

An interesting question in this context is how the average lifespan of a car in Sweden will develop. It has just now increased from 17 to 19 years, but one observation is that the average lifespan will decrease when a used electric car, overall, seen in terms of purchase plus operation, becomes more economical than a fossil-fueled car. What happens then to the climate emissions, if the lifespan of our cars is shortened dramatically and we scrap many of the fossil-fueled cars?

Madam Speaker! The war in Ukraine has simultaneously highlighted the issue of emergency stockpiles so that the need for transport can be ensured in the event of a major power outage. In parallel, there is also the question of our cultural-historical heritage in the form of older cars and ensuring that there continues to be fuel for these vehicles on the market.

Large parts of our road network were built over 60 years ago. Neglected maintenance means that large parts of the road network need to be refurbished. This concerns, not least, the possibility of allowing heavier trucks on a larger part of our road network. The transports must function all the way from start to destination. The load-bearing capacity of the roads also has great importance for the mobile load cranes - an important function, not least during construction. Trafikverket should be able to offer support to the municipalities with the permit processes for mobile load cranes.

It is of importance that the state continues to provide significant support to the owners of private roads so that the road standards can be maintained. If a public road is converted into a private road, this must not mean that the state's costs are shifted onto the roads' new owners.

Another area is snow removal. Trafikverket should design procurement of contractors so that it is possible to perform snow removal both for the state and for individual road associations.

Madam Speaker! Everyone should be able to move in public places, regardless of functional variation. I believe that measures should be taken to ensure accessibility during transport for persons with visual impairments.

Madam Speaker! The day is coming soon when we will have self-driving vehicles on our roads. The technology was introduced last year and is being rolled out progressively. Therefore, it is urgent to review and adapt all relevant legislation so that self-driving cars can be introduced on our roads in a traffic-safe manner. Based on the 2015 report on the introduction of self-driving vehicles in Sweden, a strategy and an action plan were needed for how self-driving cars can be introduced into society in a safe way.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the Liberals consider investments in research, such as Vehicle Strategic Research and Innovation, FFI, and collaborations between universities and the business sector, to be important pieces of the puzzle for the Swedish vehicle cluster to continue to remain at the forefront. The Swedish vehicle industry consists of the largest companies we have in Sweden. They are, in addition to being large employers, an incredibly strong driver for innovation and development, and they create growth all over Sweden, also by ensuring that new technology is also utilized in other companies outside the vehicle cluster.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have listened to the debate and thought that I should remain silent, but it becomes so much and so strange.

Member of Parliament Gellerman speaks about the removal of bonus-malus, or the bonus system for electric cars, and argues that it has had no effect whatsoever on electric car sales. When talking to the car industry, they say that the sale of electric cars primarily to private individuals came to a complete standstill. When it comes to companies, there is still some sales, as the starting point is different when these decisions are made.

What happened when the government pulled this away overnight, which also caused the Swedes to lose confidence in this type of support measure because one does not know how long they apply, was that we just then received an order bulk, as people rushed and ordered cars during a single day. They are rolling out in the statistics now, but no new cars are being sold at our car dealerships. It stopped there, therefore.

The interesting thing about this government is that everything is now in the "electric vehicles" basket. It is very good that we are going to transition to electric vehicles, but the government is doing such strange things. The government should, of course, have kept the bonus and ensured that the charging infrastructure is also expanded so that we have it.

But to remove the steering mechanism that was very effective – one could also have reformed it – was a catastrophe for the development that we need within the automotive industry in Sweden.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question – or perhaps I should say the allegations.

I must begin by saying that I am somewhat surprised that the member says that I, in my speech, took up bonus-malus and that it has no effect, because I did not mention that instrument at all.

The Liberals have long believed that one should support new technology. We did that when electric cars needed support in the beginning, and we do the same when it comes to trucks. We have a premium to get that sales started. I was personally involved in making that decision. But when over 50 percent of the cars sold on the market are electric cars or rechargeable cars, the state should not step in and put money into that. Then the state should put the money on charging infrastructure. It was this that I took up in my speech.

When it comes to what has happened after bonus-malus was removed, we must keep in mind that we have an economic crisis. Mobility Sweden says that very few cars are being sold, but the proportion of electric cars among the cars sold is just as large. What we get statistics on are registered cars. We have no statistics on the order volume.

The entire new car sales have gone down. It is a sign of the economic crisis and not that we have removed bonus malus.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have an economic crisis, and it is quite true that most of the sales of expensive goods are declining. But one can clearly see that on the date the government cut the bonus for electric cars, there was an enormous effect in the form of that type of car ceasing to be sold. We know that electric cars otherwise are what people desire, because it is cheaper to drive an electric car than a fossil fuel car, regardless of whether we have a reduction obligation or not. It is an incredible advantage for many.

What has been done now is that people have been put in a situation where they choose not to make this investment despite it being economically bad times. We would have wanted to see a completely different type of rollout. It is precisely in that area that we can see a major change, because that is where it has come to a complete standstill.

It is strange that this government, which hardly talks about anything other than electricity, did not include a phase-out system. One could also do as we proposed in our budget motion and not have high bonuses on expensive cars but direct them towards cheaper cars, so that also those who do not have the same economic opportunities as many in Östermalm in Stockholm would be able to buy an electric car. Those people now have no possibility of entering that market.

The unpredictability and what has now been put in place for the consumers is devastating, I would say. It becomes strange when the government talks about that it is only electric vehicles that should be [the focus]. We also consider that, but it is strange that the government then removes the steering measures.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions, even if they were implied!

That it becomes a decline after one removes a support measure, we have seen previously. I sat in the Riksdag during the entire last parliamentary term. As soon as one makes a change to the steering measures, it has effects. People wait with their purchases until the support is introduced, and then there are huge purchases when it has been introduced. And when one removes a support, very much happens right before it disappears. It is the same as we see here. People front-loaded their purchases before the support was removed. It is nothing strange.

I would actually like to ask Daniel Helldén - now this is my final remark - where he sees statistics showing that the proportion of electric cars of the total sales has gone down. I, for one, cannot find any such statistics.

We are now expanding the charging infrastructure. We are investing a lot of money. The Government considers that it is precisely the charging infrastructure that we as a society must invest in. The state must step in and work there.

The cheapest electric car costs perhaps 350,000 today. A person with normal incomes cannot afford such a car. It is important that we get many electric cars out, because if many are to be able to drive electric cars, we must build up a second-hand market. After three years, the value of a car has decreased by approximately 40 percent. Then it might be possible for the vast majority to buy such a car. This is what we must get started to create a larger market with electric cars in Sweden.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Gellerman, for the speech! It is quite obvious that the Member has a solid background in this area, which she also spoke about, not least when it comes to vehicle issues.

This regarding the issues of functional disabilities that were highlighted in the presentation is important. It is important that we raise it in different ways. That is also what I want to put forward.

I have two questions linked to the presentation. When it comes to autonomous vehicles, i.e., self-driving vehicles, which were also addressed in the presentation, the member stated that a strategy was needed. There was also a motion from the spring of 2018 to the government to expeditiously develop a strategy for self-driving vehicles, but it has not been the same government since, so there is a certain understanding of that. But I was a bit surprised by what is stated in the committee's position. It is said that the issue is being prepared in the Government Offices and that it is not considered fully processed. But I have read through the report a couple of times now, and I cannot find anything about the strategy issue in the committee's position. It surprises me that that question does not appear there.

My second question concerns winter road maintenance. The member mentioned the possibility of providing services for multiple clients. As I understand it, Trafikverket has commented on this. Now it is noted that the matter is being prepared within the Government Offices. But what is the time aspect of this – how long should it be prepared? Now the sun is shining, but can it be imagined that next winter there might be something in a regulatory letter or similar that actually contributes to solving this problem?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! This issue regarding autonomous vehicles is very close to my heart. I believe that with self-driving cars we can solve many problems. I have personally worked with the issue for about eight years and collected data to be able to get a self-driving car to drive approximately like a human driver. It is about looking at how a human drives and copying that over to a self-driving car.

The reason why people started looking at self-driving cars is that humans are responsible for 90 percent of all accidents. If one can then automate the cars step by step, one will also reduce the number of accidents. Road safety is, I believe, the most important issue we have.

The Chairman of the Committee raises how we handle the issue of autonomous vehicles. It has now been seven months since the government took office. We have had very many things on our table. As I mentioned in my speech, perhaps the most important thing is to create good conditions for a climate transition. There was very much to do after the old government.

We are now working a lot on seeing how we can facilitate not only for self-driving cars but for the entire digitalization and connectivity. Self-driving cars are entering gradually. One should not only talk about self-driving cars but about the entire digitalization with active safety systems and so on.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answers. My question remains. A strategy was needed, the member said. There is nothing about a strategy in the committee's position, and that makes one a bit thoughtful.

Then I had the question about winter road maintenance. Can it be expected that assignments will be given in this area, so that as early as next winter, there will be an opportunity to see that one can make an attempt, if only pilot projects in some county? It is about giving that opportunity so that we can see that we have high-quality winter road maintenance on all types of roads. Then one can also coordinate the possibilities, for I think that is a way to be resource-efficient in the big picture. Trafikverket surely sees it as part of that as well.

Then my question is: Is this something that you intend to include in a regulatory letter or something else to Trafikverket? They are, on many occasions, quite detailed, and one also wants to see that this issue can be resolved.

I wonder, then, about the winter road maintenance, and I wonder why there is nothing written about the strategy when it is said that it is needed.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Member! It was a pity that the strategy was not included, because I think it is important. I missed that when I read through this. There were very many pages; I believe there were 100 pages to read.

This is an important issue, and we carry it with us when we sit and discuss. One must have a strategy but also a concrete action plan regarding what one is to do.

When it comes to winter road maintenance, I think the member is making an interesting proposal. I already said in 2018, when I entered the Riksdag, that we should look more at a system that one has, for example, in Finland. One can, as they say, sandbox. You test different policies in different parts and see: What is it that works? The proposal that the member brings up, to coordinate the possibilities with winter road maintenance and test in a smaller area and see how it works, I think sounds interesting. For my part, I will take that with me and see if it can be a possible way to test how one does this in the best way. I thank you for the proposal.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats stand behind all our 14 reservations in the report - we have slightly more than the Centre Party. But to save time during the voting, I move for approval of only reservation 36.

Madam Speaker! We members of the Swedish Riksdag can and shall create the conditions for people and companies to be able to live and operate in the entire country. We have a responsibility to take measures when we see that serious deficiencies arise in our infrastructure. The voters, whether they are entrepreneurs or private individuals, can rightly expect us to act. It is not enough to push problems into an inquiry; instead, decisive action is required here.

Something is truly crazy when the country's important infrastructure no longer functions as it should, when roads become impassable due to lack of maintenance regardless of whether it is summer or winter.

Madam Speaker! This winter, it snowed again, just as it usually does every winter, something that obviously comes as a surprise to Trafikverket. In large parts of Sweden, European roads and national roads were blocked - important roads for industry, trade, and agriculture, and where private individuals, rescue services, ambulances, and the police must be able to get through. The accidents did not wait either. Collisions and run-off-road incidents followed one another. The accident development is heading in the wrong direction. People are killed and injured on our roads, many times due to deficiencies in road maintenance.

That such important parts of our infrastructure are blocked as soon as there is a little snow is not acceptable. The social costs in such extensive stoppages are naturally large, much larger than the cost of a well-functioning winter road maintenance.

For my part, I was contacted by several trucking company owners and drivers who warned about glass-smooth roads where it was even difficult to walk. On Facebook, videos were posted showing that the roads were so slippery that one would slide on their shoes on the ice-covered road surface.

A group has been formed on Facebook under the name Vägen är vår arbetsplats. The group was created because of the increasingly poorer maintenance of our winter roads. Professional drivers perform important transports. They ensure that industries, hospitals, pharmacies, grocery stores - to name a few - get their transports carried out.

That the maintenance of winter roads has significantly deteriorated over the last 10-15 years has been a constant topic of conversation among the country's professional drivers. In radio segments from different parts of the country, professional drivers describe their working situation. It is a working situation that would in no way be accepted in other professions. It is not reasonable that drivers risk their health when they perform their work. The professional drivers ensure that transports that are important for industry and private individuals arrive. It is also not reasonable that major transport routes such as European roads, national roads, and major county roads are blocked for several hours due to deficient maintenance. Time and again, Trafikverket says that one should stop when the road conditions are poor. A reasonable follow-up question then becomes: How are deliveries to industries, grocery stores, pharmacies, and hospitals to be carried out if deficient maintenance constantly stops the flow of goods? It is important that these deliveries function regardless of the weather. Transports are society's bloodstream and an absolute prerequisite for our welfare society to function.

Furthermore, rescue services, ambulances, and the police risk being delayed in their important service delivery when the maintenance of our roads is deficient. Poor maintenance of our roads risks lives, literally.

Trafikverket must allocate sufficient resources and develop routines to ensure the functionality of the country's roads regardless of the season.

It is not acceptable that our roads are deteriorating and furthermore have such deficient maintenance during winter road conditions as we have seen examples of in recent winters. The Sweden Democrats therefore consider that increased investments in road maintenance in both the state and the private road network must be prioritized.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Transport Committee has a number of debates that overlap with each other, and much of it concerns the transport sector's transition to fossil-free. We all know that by 2030, 70 percent of emissions shall be gone, and we know that by 2045, all emissions shall be gone. I did not intend to speak about that part today. We have motions on that.

I also did not intend to speak about the motions we have concerning car-sharing and the need for it, which is however a central part of making the transition. We can share cars instead of each person owning a car.

I will also not speak about the motion we have regarding how mopeds in class II cause problems with their emissions and that we therefore would need to have environmental zones for mopeds in class II. I can recommend reading that motion and our reservation.

No, Madam Speaker, I thought instead to briefly speak about the potential of the embankments, which is also part of the Transport Committee's area of responsibility. It is about the embankments' possibility to help biodiversity, which is part of the work to manage the climate transition. We need biodiversity, and with much of what we do, we damage it.

The embankments in our national road network are today managed primarily as an area that is mown clear of vegetation. The main purpose is to prevent the vegetation from becoming overgrown, obstructing visibility and hiding animals adjacent to the roads.

For many plants, this is exactly what they need: to be cut or mown. The cutting of the roadsides contributes to the same function as the annual mowing in traditional agriculture. Trafikverket mows in principle 200,000 kilometers a year, and if we change how we mow the roadsides, we can in a relatively simple way create a species-rich environment that contributes to a living landscape and greater biodiversity. More than 300 different red-listed animal and plant species occur at our roadsides, several of which are the same as those that occur on meadows and nature pastures.

It is readily available to manage the brush just like meadowland by using adapted machines to mow down the vegetation at the right time after flowering and collecting what is mown so that it becomes lean soil at the edges. The project Artrik energy recovery in Skåne is a successful attempt with specially adapted mowing units for brush mowing that simultaneously collect the remains. The principle is simple: One simply mows down and picks up what one has cut down.

Trafikverket has a government mandate to take into account the biodiversity of the roadsides. But the mandate is too vague, and interests are being pitted against each other. According to Trafikverket's own evaluation, better conditions are required for a structured and successful effort to protect and maintain biodiversity.

If Trafikverket switches to ecologically adapted mowing principles, we will get a standard for machines and working methods that will be used not only in the national road network but also on private and municipal roads. This would mean a great gain for biodiversity all over the country. In summary, I believe that Trafikverket, which has the responsibility for the national road network, should switch to exactly the aforementioned mowing principles.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but in order to win time at the vote, I choose to move for approval only of reservation 21 regarding car pools, which I have not spoken so much about.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Daniel Helldén!

I know that if one says what I am saying, one does not become popular. The climate issue has unfortunately grown into a religion where the unfaithful are to be punished severely through accusations of heresy and climate denial, even though I have full respect for the member's position regarding the climate goal.

But what is the climate goal actually? The climate goal is a document, a decision, which has been fundamentally made in the Riksdag and which was pushed through by Miljöpartiet during the previous government. For me, it is nothing more than that. I respect Fit for 55 but not the climate goal.

In motion 2022/23:2175, the proponents from Miljöpartiet want the sale of new fossil fuel cars to be phased out by 2025 at the latest. My question to Daniel Helldén is: What cars are we going to have after 2025?

In the party debate, Märta Stenevi, party leader for Miljöpartiet, said: Had we instead put pressure on the food giants, put pressure on the electricity companies, abolished the food VAT and increased the child allowance, it would have reached those who have the very least.

When will the Green Party and their coalition partners put pressure on the car manufacturers and engineers to deliver these cars after 2025? Is this something real?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Rashid Farivar, for the questions!

I would like to start with the climate goals. One can have different opinions on whether there is a climate crisis and whether we need certain types of goals. I understand that the member does not stand behind the national goals. SD did not do so when all other parties hammered them through, but thank goodness we are in a clear majority.

It is not the case that it was the Green Party that set these goals. I can agree that the Green Party has pushed hard for us to have climate legislation and targets in this legislation, as well as in all the work that exists with the Environmental Goals Commission and other things. But what is a bit interesting is that there is an investigation called Fossilfrihet på väg (Fossil-free on the way). It came in 2013 during Reinfeldt's government, and I believe it was actually initiated by the Center Party. There, it was discussed that one should have a fossil-independent vehicle fleet by 2030. That was translated to 70 percent by 2030, meaning that 70 percent of the fossil fuels in the vehicle fleet should be removed. That is where the goal came from.

We think it was a good goal. All other parties except the Sweden Democrats also thought it was a good goal and an excellent goal for Sweden to point the way. The goal remains fixed, and even the government says that it remains fixed, which pleases me.

How are we going to manage to phase out the sale of new fossil fuel cars by 2025? If I'm honest, I actually think it will be difficult with the new government's policy. It would have been easier if we had been allowed to keep the decisions that were made in the previous government.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Daniel Helldén, even though it actually wasn't an answer!

The former Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson has said that the success we see in today's Sweden is due to Stefan Löfven's industrialization policy and the Green Party's climate policy. The climate goal is from the Green Party, and I do not stand behind this national climate goal.

The International Energy Agency, IEA, and the Geological Survey of Finland state in a report that the total amount of known copper deposits globally amounts to approximately 870 million tonnes. But only the copper consumption for a global transition to renewable energy is estimated to be 4.5 billion tonnes, that is, five times more than what exists on Earth. The same applies to a lot of other things, such as cobalt, lithium, steel, and aluminum.

Power plants for renewable energy production need on average eight to twelve times more copper than fossil-based energy production. Electric vehicles need three to four times more copper than vehicles with traditional internal combustion engines. The shortage situation will have a dramatic impact on our ability to build the infrastructure required for the energy transition, for example wind power, electric cars and charging stations.

The material does not exist. It will not be enough. I ask my question again: When will Miljöpartiet and its coalition partners to the left pressure engineers, the automotive industry, and its suppliers to deliver these solutions?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The goals are based on us realizing that the climate crisis is here and that we must do a lot. If Member Farivar does not believe that it is a climate crisis or that carbon dioxide emissions are causing problems, I can understand the way he speaks about these matters.

We and the overwhelming majority of all researchers who are working on these matters believe that the transition is needed. When we in the Swedish Riksdag set the goals for 2030 and 2045, the business sector starts to transition. Volvo will stop manufacturing fossil fuel cars, and from 2030 there will only be electric ones. They are stopping the production of diesel engines this autumn. That these goals exist means a pressure on the transition. Of course, it is not just about the national goals in Sweden but also about international goals. The industry knows that this is coming. This is about applying pressure, and that is when it happens. The business sector thinks this is good. Svenskt Näringsliv wants this, and they are leading the way and showing how it can be done.

It was initially a question of how we are going to manage this until 2025. We probably would have managed it if we had continued forward towards the goal. It is about which cars we put out, not which cars we have. This is something we need to do. All the cars that are now put out live for 17-20 years and emit their carbon dioxide - and that is not good.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by conveying that the Sweden Democrats stand behind all its reservations in the report, but in order to save time during the voting, I choose to move for approval only of reservations 8 and 30.

Madam Speaker! When the German engineers and industrialists Nikolaus Otto, Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach developed and presented the first gasoline-powered four-stroke internal combustion engine in 1876, they had no idea that the Western climate movement more than 140 years later would blame the planet's climatic death on that very invention. They certainly would have refrained from mounting that engine on a horse-drawn carriage nine years later to build the world's first car if they had resonated like today's climate activists and certain politicians. But we can be happy and grateful that these individuals, as well as many other Western engineers and entrepreneurs within the automotive industry, have thought rationally, developed and produced the cheap, practical and reliable technology that daily helps billions of people all over the world to travel or transport goods from point A to point B.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I absolutely do not want to diminish the importance of climate measures, sustainability work, and new technology to solve the new challenges humanity faces. But is a ban on a certain functioning technology really the most reasonable solution to force better technology? And an even more important question could be: Who is forcing these bans? Is it engineers, experts, and entrepreneurs, or is it untrained activists, politicians, and bureaucrats who are guided by their emotions?

Madam Speaker! The new red-green government in the City of Stockholm wants to introduce new, stricter environmental zones for traffic in Gamla stan and parts of city. Some of the measures that the government has announced are that in parts of Stockholm's inner city, only electric and gas cars will be allowed to be driven, that is, in environmental zone class 3 which is introduced in 2024. On parts of Sveavägen, traffic will be closed off completely during certain weekends.

This proposal completely ignores the fact that the freight transport sector is still entirely dependent on traditional diesel and gasoline-powered heavy and light trucks, both in terms of price and structure. Approximately 90 percent of all freight transports in Sweden are under 30 miles. The logistics industry's vehicle fleet is nowhere near capable of meeting Stockholm's new vehicle requirements, and a forced electrification in a time characterized by both energy shortages and skyrocketing food prices will lead to acute shortages of goods and even higher prices. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna believe that the possibility of enacting national laws against municipalities detrimentally restricting car traffic at the municipal level should be investigated.

Madam Speaker! Another issue that the Sweden Democrats have long championed is to provide better opportunities and conditions for motor enthusiasts to engage in the motor hobby. The motor hobby has an important task in preserving our motor history, and many motor enthusiasts therefore want to preserve important vehicle models for the future. For some reason, individual officials at the environmental protection departments of the county administrative boards have decided that valuable restoration objects may not be imported but must be regarded as hazardous waste and thus be scrapped.

EU legislation provides clear guidelines that used vehicles are normally not to be regarded as hazardous waste. Nor does the vehicle constitute hazardous waste even if there is a need for renovation. The motor hobby is an important part of our society, and it must not be destroyed by arbitrary decisions from authorities. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna believe that the Riksdag and the government should offer better protection for the vintage car hobby and the motor enthusiasts' valuable contributions.

Road traffic and vehicle issues

In this speech, Thomas Morell (SD) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 May.)

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