Road traffic and vehicle issues

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating road and vehicle issues, TU9. I move for approval of the proposals in the committee report and rejection of all motions.

Mr. Speaker! We members of the Swedish Riksdag can and shall create the conditions for people and companies to be able to live and operate throughout the country. We have a responsibility to take action 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.

Together with the government, we in Sverigedemokrater have changed course regarding investments in infrastructure, away from fantasy investments in high-speed trains towards sensible investments in the maintenance of railways and roads. In the plan that is currently undergoing final processing, funds are allocated to remove, among other things, the maintenance debt on roads. It is a clear change of course where the focus lies on maintaining existing infrastructure but also on sensible investments in new projects.

A well-functioning infrastructure is important for the whole country to function. Regardless of whether one lives and works in Kiruna, Vilhelmina, Stockholm, Växjö or Ystad, the infrastructure must function.

Mr. Speaker! The change of course that is now taking place is important for the infrastructure to function in our entire country. Infrastructure is a prerequisite for people and companies to be able to live and operate in the whole country. If the transport does not work, nothing else will work either.

A prerequisite for people to have food on the table, clothes on their bodies, houses to live in and jobs to go to is that the infrastructure works – summer and winter and every hour of the day. The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are therefore increasing the investments in road maintenance. It is a measure that is eagerly awaited by the country's motorists.

Mr. Speaker! This winter, snow and cold arrived once again, just as it usually does every winter. However, the cold has lingered longer than usual in southern Sweden. This is to the joy of all children celebrating the winter break, but unfortunately, the winter seems to come as a surprise for Trafikverket even this year.

In large parts of Sweden, European roads and national roads that are important for industry, trade, and agriculture to function are being blocked. Also, private individuals, rescue services, ambulances, and the police must be able to get through. The accidents did not wait either; collisions and run-offs followed one another.

Mr. Speaker! That such important parts of our infrastructure are blocked as soon as there is a little snow is not acceptable. The societal costs in the event of such extensive stoppages will naturally be large, much larger than the costs for a well-functioning winter road maintenance.

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

Mr. Speaker! Professional drivers ensure that industries, hospitals, pharmacies and grocery stores, to name a few, get their important transports carried out. In radio segments from different parts of the country, professional drivers describe their work situation – a work situation that would in no way be accepted in other professions.

That the maintenance of the winter roads has deteriorated significantly over the last ten to fifteen years has been a constant topic of conversation. It is also not reasonable that major transport routes are blocked for several hours due to deficient maintenance. Time and again, Trafikverket says that one should stay home 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? And how are emergency services, ambulances, and the police to reach those in distress if the roads are blocked? Transport is society's bloodstream and an absolute prerequisite for our welfare society to function.

Trafikverket has over many years built up a procurement system that demonstrably does not work. This, together with an over-reliance on digital weather stations, creates the problems we see on the country's winter roads.

Together with a colleague in the Riksdag, I visited a farming company yesterday. We discussed the procurement forms regarding the maintenance of winter roads. It can only be stated that as these contracts are procured, conditions are created for traffic stoppages. One gets out too late, and the efforts one makes are too poor.

This is a major concern, which we have raised in discussions with Trafikverket. Now it is time to scrap this procurement form. We must focus on results. It is an absolute requirement for the infrastructure to function.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar and Patrik Jönsson (both SD) concurred.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! This debate concerns road traffic and vehicle issues, but I nevertheless want to begin it with a greeting from a minister from Ukraine, Serhiy Derkaty, Deputy Minister for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine, whom the group leaders in the committee had the privilege of meeting during a conference this morning. He sent his warm greetings and thanked for the support for Ukraine, which is indeed strong from all the parties in the Riksdag. We received a greeting from Ukraine, and I want to send a greeting back. I know that this is an issue that engages all parties in many different ways.

When we are to discuss snow removal, vintage vehicles and so on, and see what situation one is struggling with in Ukraine to maintain an infrastructure in war, then of course all initiatives that can be taken in various ways from Sweden's side are important.

With that said, this is still an important report. I would like to turn to you who may be listening to this debate and say that there is much one can read in the form of proposals from the different parties. One can also read which investigations are underway. And one can see that this government, despite big words and despite the Tidö parties raising important issues in the debate, in a number of the issues raised in the report still chooses to be lazy and not act – to say that it is in itself an interesting issue but that the previous government did nothing, so we do nothing either. And so the question just flutters by.

Just as the previous speaker mentioned, the possibility of transport, both for businesses and for people, is an important part; it is like the pulse in a country. To make another connection to Ukraine, perhaps it actually fits with the pulse, for it is also the lifeline. They can perhaps be equated with each other, for it is incredibly important that the different parts function.

When one sees pictures of a bombed railway or, for that matter, a road that is relatively fine but which is encased in netting to protect road users from drones so that they can travel safely on the road, it becomes incredibly powerful. Then I am glad that the Swedish government is making efforts to support Ukraine in this work.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to raise a couple of the reservations in the report. We begin the report by presenting proposals for a fossil-free vehicle fleet. From the government's side, it is said that measures have been taken to accelerate the transition – so the committee's position begins. It then becomes a bit difficult when it appears in the background texts that emissions increased during 2024. According to the first figure, the increase was 21 percent, but upon a summation at the end of 2025, it can certainly be stated that emissions increased by 24 percent over one year. I know that one should be cautious with percentages of various kinds, but one can also compare it with the fact that emissions from 2010 to 2024 decreased by 20 percent. Then one can understand that what happened during 2024 is extremely serious.

What measures have been taken then? Well, it is written in the report that one wants to remind everyone who reads it that a new reduction obligation was introduced on July 1, 2025. This is seen as part of the way forward to reduce emissions. We hope that it will lead to reduced emissions.

If I may offer a little more criticism, I am however concerned that we now, after three and a half years with this government, can still see that support is being withdrawn and reintroduced – it becomes very jerky. Something that both private individuals and companies desire is stability and long-term perspective and to know what applies. You have a support for electric cars, and then you remove that support and introduce another support for electric cars. No one knows how long it will apply and on what premises.

Mr. Speaker! I do not think that this government has handled the issue of electrification and the creation of a fossil-free vehicle fleet as it should have during the years that have passed.

Another question I want to raise in this context is the car-sharing schemes. Already in 2020, an inquiry was received regarding car-sharing. In the report, it is stated that the previous government did not take any measures. It looked at the inquiry but took no measures. And then it is written: We are also not taking any measures.

We know that a car in a car pool could replace as many as 15 other cars. It is actually quite good; we can reduce the number of cars and at the same time use the cars that exist in a significantly wiser way. I regret that the car pool issue is not being raised, but only note that one does not need to do anything there.

From the opposition parties, we have highlighted the need for various types of promotional measures. From the Center Party's side, we have highlighted the need to legally define what applies to car-sharing. But we also highlight the possibility for the municipalities to handle, for example, the parking issue so that one promotes a development that is good for both mobility and the climate.

Another issue that is handled somewhat in the report which I also want to raise – it concerns the vintage cars. There seems to be a consensus in the committee that the rules that have been adopted at the European level now nevertheless partially point in the right direction so that the vintage cars that exist in Sweden can be regarded as part of both cultural and motor heritage. Thus, the possibility to continue using them in a good way should be able to be ensured.

The members of the committee before me raised the issue of snow removal. Snow and cold are part of winter. I appreciate that the government is now perhaps finally addressing the underlying issues. The government has had three and a half years, and there has been a lot of criticism, but despite that, we are in the same situation. It is necessary that one understands the issues – that one does not just criticize but can also understand them in depth. It seems that a broader consensus is now beginning to emerge in this.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up the greeting from the Ukrainian minister. I want to highlight the need for a fossil-free vehicle fleet and car pools. I also want to move for the approval of reservations 2 and 19.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report TU9 Road traffic - and vehicle issues. The government parties agree on the committee's proposal, while the opposition only has two issues where they have succeeded in reaching a common reservation. The opposition agrees on car-sharing issues and on parking issues. In the other parts of the report, the opposition has not succeeded in uniting in a common position.

Mr. Speaker! Vänstern wants to ban the sale of new fossil-fueled cars after 2030. Vänstern even wants to ban the import of fossil cars to Sweden after 2030. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic proposal, but if the Social Democrats and Vänstern were to win the election this year, you know what issues Vänstern intends to pursue. We will, of course, reduce fossil dependency and work to achieve that, but banning certain cars after 2030 completely lacks any basis in reality.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to increase the number of electric trucks. This is a task that is already underway, and our large truck companies in Sweden have come far in this. The planning of a large battery factory in Mariestad is in full swing.

But if trucking companies and bus companies are to have the means to replace trucks or buses, it is important that we succeed in pressing down inflation and thus the interest rates. When the previous government drove up interest rates and inflation to sky-high levels, it was not strange that more people waited with replacing their truck or any other vehicle. We have now reversed that development and are restoring order and clarity in the finances. Better stability in the economy will make more people dare to switch to electric vehicles again.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to ban the sale of mopeds with internal combustion engines, as these vehicles are perceived by Miljöpartiet as a problem in Stockholm. Miljöpartiet believes that Sweden only consists of Stockholm and large cities and completely forgets the needs and conditions of the rest of the country. Of course, we should facilitate more electric vehicles, and we are actively working to increase electricity production by expanding nuclear power, preserving and developing our small-scale hydropower plants, investing in new power lines, and expanding the electricity infrastructure. But banning certain vehicles is no way forward. It only affects those who lack alternatives.

Many in Sweden lack other alternatives and are completely dependent on the car and functioning roads. The Left Party's and the Green Party's policy is based on a large-city perspective and ignores other parts of Sweden, which is obviously serious.

Mr. Speaker! We want the whole country to grow and develop. A prerequisite for this is that we have functioning roads. We are now ensuring that the worn-out roads left behind by the previous government are repaired. The roads must function. They are the lifeblood of Sweden.

People should be able to get to work, to school, to healthcare, and to friends and acquaintances. One should be able to travel and visit relatives or get to leisure activities. The car and the roads create a freedom for the people in Sweden. That is something we must safeguard and nurture. Then we must have roads that function both in summer and winter. Therefore, we are now investing in refurbishing the country's roads again.

Mr. Speaker! When one reads the opposition's reservations, one realizes that there is a number of proposals that they want to implement now that they are in opposition but did not prioritize and implement during their eight years in power. It is also clear that it is the taxpayers and the country's companies that are to finance these proposals. Of course, many of the measures should be implemented, but it must happen in a way where we safeguard the taxpayers' money and expand at a pace that is reasonable for both economic and time-related reasons. The environmental panic that has struck the opposition parties does not benefit the country.

If the measures are as urgent as the opposition tries to claim, it is quite strange that they did not implement them during their eight years in power. Those who are now buying a new car must be sure that it can be used and that they are not hit by completely unreasonable cost increases due to the environmental panic among Sweden's opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker! We have a responsibility to expand the charging infrastructure, and that is what we are working on. As I have said before, we are also working to ensure that there is electricity in the charging stations. There must be electricity that also works in the middle of winter and when the wind turbines are standing still. Therefore, we are investing in a stable electricity production by building new nuclear power plants.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there is often a need for two or more cars in a family. There are long distances to work, and there is a lack of both lanes and public transport in large parts of the country, which means that alternatives are missing. This also means that the car costs for a family in the countryside are high. Of course, the high costs affect the possibility of moving around and having money left over to be able to switch to a new car in the future. This problem is not solved by penalizing the countryside with even higher fuel prices and poorer roads.

Mr. Speaker! We have lowered the reduction obligation and the tax on gasoline and diesel to a more reasonable level, which has resulted in the price per liter decreasing by 8–10 kronor per liter. Sweden is a large and sparsely populated country, and we obviously cannot penalize those who truly need the car.

We also see to it that the country's roads are repaired and ensure that they actually function.

Mr. Speaker! In several of the opposition parties' reservations, we can see how they want to worsen or complicate things for the country's ordinary car owners in different ways. Feel free to develop new possibilities and new technology, but stop chasing the country's ordinary car owners!

Many of Sweden's vehicle owners also have vintage vehicles that they maintain and take care of. Those who own vintage vehicles take care of Sweden's rolling cultural heritage. It ranges from cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles and mopeds to work machines and often also equipment for these work machines. It is a living museum that engages many, and we must be careful with it.

Cumbersome bureaucracy in Sweden or in the EU must be stopped. There is broad support here in the Riksdag to safeguard our rolling cultural heritage.

Transportstyrelsen's proposal to reintroduce inspections on certain cars that are over 50 years old has no support here in the Riksdag. I would instead like to take the opportunity to thank all these vintage vehicle owners who, with their own time and own money, preserve our rolling cultural heritage: A big thank you to you!

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates will continue to stand on the side of the car owner and ensure that we have reasonable conditions for car owners both in the city and in the countryside. The car and our roads are a prerequisite for the country to function.

Mr. Speaker! We are also pushing to speed up the work regarding longer and heavier trucks, and we are upgrading the roads so that they can handle heavier and longer transports. We are also pushing for more roads to be classified so that they can handle transports up to 34.5 meters long. If one can drive longer and heavier trucks, the competitiveness of our companies increases, and it also contributes to reducing the environmental impact because the truck can carry more goods on each trip. A lower diesel price has also strengthened the competitiveness of the Swedish haulage industry.

Mr. Speaker! Another issue raised in the report is winter road maintenance. It must be reviewed. There are places and areas where it works well today, but there are too many places where the winter road maintenance does not work. One gets stuck in traffic. Dangerous traffic situations arise. People get stuck in their cars. This is something that must be addressed and minimized.

The procurement needs to be reviewed, and local familiarity and knowledge need to be better prioritized. The professional knowledge of machine operators and those who perform the snow removal must be taken into account and used better.

Mr. Speaker! It is not possible to manage the country's roads from behind a desk. The power and influence over snow removal must be moved from the desk to those who work out on the road.

More salt may need to be used even if it is environmentally impactful. It is important for people's safety on our roads, and it must be prioritized over icy roads. Icy roads are a life-threatening danger and a traffic hazard. They are also an environmental hazard. Trucks with dangerous cargo and buses with people can slide into the ditch and become stranded there, and the cargo can leak out. These traffic accidents can cause both human suffering and environmental destruction. We are now actively working to try to improve winter road maintenance here in Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservations.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a few questions to Member Bergheden, who I think lumps the opposition together a bit too carelessly. He suddenly expects the opposition to think the same in all matters, where it does not seem that the government parties are able to think the same. And thus, they cannot move forward.

Let me ask then, three and a half years into the parliamentary term: How is it that it sounds exactly the same in this debate as it has three times before? This is, therefore, the fourth time, and the criticism regarding the snow removal sounds exactly the same: We must review it. The procurement must be reviewed.

What is it that has caused the Tidö parties to have failed to review the issue of snow removal during these three and a half years? We are now entering the fourth winter.

Then it is exactly as the member highlights: To manage the electrification, we also need more electricity. He highlights that we need to build new nuclear power. There we know that the government, with the proposal currently before us, will indebt future generations in a way that is anything but responsible.

The member also says that the government has now succeeded in preserving the small-scale hydropower plants. What is it that has happened? My impression, however, is not that they have succeeded in preserving them, but rather that it is approximately the same problem as it has been during at least the last ten years. I would like to hear what news the member can provide to owners of small-scale hydropower plants, who have truly worked with these issues for a long time.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Ulrika Heie!

We can start with winter road maintenance. That it cannot be solved quickly is one of the reasons why it looks very different across the country. Furthermore, previous governments have carried out a new procurement reform, so to speak, which means that it has been done in a different way in the procurement of winter road maintenance.

It turns out that it does not work. It works worse in some places and better in some places. Therefore, I believe that we need to review it so that we get a better local adaptation in the procurements. It is about the people who know the roads and who are used to driving there getting a greater influence in the work itself, so that no one from Trafikverket or some company sits and decides this from some office further away. We are looking at this part, and we are working hard on it.

Mr. Speaker! Ulrika Heie also raised the issue of building new nuclear power and saddling us with debt. Yes, but in that issue, it is actually almost even worse that you were involved and voted to shut down functioning nuclear power. What does that not cost today? Experts have said that in southern Sweden, one would have had approximately half the electricity cost if we had kept Ringhals, for example. You have caused the country a great deal of damage by pressing that button in that vote. Otherwise, we would have stopped this and kept the nuclear power and Ringhals here in the country. I don't quite know who it is that has caused this cost. But I believe that the Center Party has to take on a rather large part of this by virtue of supporting the Social Democratic and Green Party government in that situation.

When it comes to small-scale hydropower, we are working very hard to find solutions. I cannot go into exactly what will happen moving forward, but we have an ambition to ensure that they can manage to stay, so that we can retain the small-scale hydropower plants that exist in Sweden today.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sten Bergheden, for the answers to the questions!

I would like to repeat the last question: What is it that has been done to save small-scale hydropower? When it comes to the clearing of snow, the member says: We are looking into this. But what is it that is de facto being done to solve the issue of small-scale hydropower? I would very much like to know that.

Then I am a bit surprised, I must say. It is a new question that I intended to take up now at the end of my speech. The member waves quite vigorously and points out that the opposition parties have some kind of environmental panic that does not benefit this country. It is still the case that the Moderaterna also stand behind the climate goals that the Riksdag has adopted? Surely one stands behind the goals of reducing emissions from the transport sector until 2045?

Now the government itself says that with existing policies, the goals will not be reached by 2030. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if Member Bergheden is concerned that the goals are not being reached now? It is a bit like when one talks about the maintenance of the railway: One is supposed to complete 10 percent in ten years, and if another eleven are to be completed, one should have completed the remaining 90 percent. How is one to meet the goals by 2045 if one does not reach the goals by 2030? Is one to believe that something will happen that one has not seen, or what is it that makes one expect to reach the goals by 2045?

I would like the member to describe the commitment within the Moderaterna to reach the climate goals. I also wonder whether one stands behind them, as one has done. And I want once again to ask for some clarifications regarding small-scale hydropower.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Heie, for the follow-up questions!

Which one should we start with, I believe? We can start with the climate goals. Of course, we are working on that part, but we have not been struck by such a panic that we believe things will happen here in the country that will become catastrophic if this does not happen next year.

We must ensure that companies, private individuals, and others can actually keep up with this transition. Raising the reduction obligation and raising fuel prices to 30 kronor per liter in Sweden because one believes that one will save the climate in the whole world is simply foolish. It is foolish to set out to do such a thing. The only thing we do then is that we knock out one of the most environmentally friendly productions we have here in the country. This applies to food, forestry, and everything it is about. This is threatened by driving up prices to that level and vacuuming all of Europe for alternative fuels.

It is a form of symbolic politics that is being worked with which does not hold up. Of course, we are going to lead in certain parts, and we are going to work out modern technology and keep up with that part. We will ensure that our companies have the best possible conditions, and we will work in that direction. We will do that calmly and sensibly, and we will ensure that we reach the goals in a good way. But we must not believe that it is just about getting a car pool in Stockholm to work. Apparently, there is an agreement in a reservation that car pools are important. The thing is just that parking spaces are being removed. They are chasing ordinary motorists who need to travel into Stockholm occasionally. They then have no parking spaces, because a car pool has been built inside Stockholm instead.

It is a bit of these symbolic actions that one engages in and works with. I think one could calm down a bit with that and actually start looking at this.

I will have to return to the small-scale hydropower, given that time is running out.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! The report on Road Traffic and Vehicle Issues deals with a number of motions that span a wide area. All issues are important, but for the sake of time, I want to make a few clear points. We Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but I particularly want to move for the approval of reservation 22 regarding parking issues.

Emissions from domestic transport account for approximately one-third of Sweden's total greenhouse gas emissions. Road traffic accounts for the largest part with 94 percent. This means that the transport sector is absolutely crucial for whether Sweden will meet its climate commitments.

Against this background, the report for 2025 from the government's expert body, the Climate Policy Council, is clear: the government's policy is not sufficient to reach the climate goals by 2030 or Sweden's commitments within the EU. Particularly for the transport sector, a clear direction is lacking. The Council also notes that emissions increased during 2024, partly as a result of the reduced reduction obligation and lower fuel taxes. These are decisions that hinder, rather than facilitate, the transition.

The Climate Policy Council points out three things that must happen simultaneously: faster electrification, increased use of fossil-free fuels where electrification is difficult, and a more transport-efficient society. This requires policy instruments that drive the development forward.

The government's ambitions regarding a fossil-free vehicle fleet are not sufficient. Replacing a coherent bonus-malus system with a limited electric car premium provides neither enough pace in the transition nor the long-term rules of the game that households and the business sector need.

Mr. Speaker! This is not just a climate issue. It is also a question of industry, competitiveness, and jobs. The situation today is, in my opinion, very worrying. The European and Swedish automotive industries are in the midst of a decisive shift. At the same time as China is pushing forward with electrification with great force, the EU hesitates.

When goals are postponed or loosened, uncertainty is created, and uncertainty slows down investments. Several actors within the business sector have been clear: The problem is not too high ambitions but a lack of clarity and tempo. If the EU is not offensive, Sweden, Europe, and European manufacturers risk falling behind. This has consequences for production, growth, investments, and jobs. Therefore, it is important both for the climate and for the future of industry and jobs that Sweden is proactive.

Against that background, I want to highlight some of our reservations. Firstly, it concerns the charging infrastructure. The Transport Committee's own study shows that the expansion is proceeding too slowly and is unevenly distributed across the country. This applies in particular to charging for heavy vehicles. Electrification of trucks and buses is absolutely necessary for us to reach the climate goals, but this requires planning, sufficient grid capacity, and a clear state responsibility.

An efficient charging infrastructure is not just the responsibility of a single actor. It requires cooperation between the state, the municipalities, authorities, and the business sector. When that cooperation works, Mr. Speaker, the development can proceed faster. Municipal initiatives to make charging cheaper and more accessible during times when the electricity grid is less burdened show that it is possible to combine the climate transition with reasonable costs for the users. However, it requires clear governance and accountability. Charging infrastructure is a socially important issue, not something that can be left to piecemeal market initiatives.

Secondly, Sweden is a large and elongated country. Both the railway companies and the trucking companies believe that we need to move more freight from road to rail. Longer trucks are also part of the solution. They are a win for the climate and contribute to strengthening Swedish industry. Heavier and longer trucks increase on our roads. Therefore, it is important to increase the load-bearing capacity of the road network for increased robustness and capacity by securing the so-called BK4 status.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it concerns the market for vehicle inspections. Today, we have a completely deregulated and, in practice, fully privatized inspection market. Even though follow-ups show that availability on average has not worsened, many people in rural areas experience that everyday life has become more complicated, as other services such as car workshops have disappeared. This means longer journeys and higher costs. The deregulation has led to higher prices, greater differences between locations, and increased inequality.

The National Audit Office also points out deficiencies in the state's governance and follow-up. When a privatized market is responsible for a socially important function, clear requirements, effective supervision, and a clear state responsibility are required.

The inspection is also an important tool for both the zero vision and the environmental goals. Today, the industry itself points out that Sweden lags behind when it comes to environmental control of vehicles driven with defective or manipulated emission systems. This is serious, and therefore a clear regulatory development is needed.

The government's and the Riksdag's decision on integrity checks and fitness tests for board members in inspection bodies is an important step in the right direction, but it is not enough. The state is responsible for equivalence and reasonable conditions and for ensuring that the inspection contributes better to road safety and reduced emissions.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, it is about car-sharing and parking. We in the Social Democrats want, together with the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party, to remove obstacles for car sharing. As we have heard here today, cars stand still for the majority of the time. Car-sharing can reduce the need to own a private car, free up space, and reduce emissions. A concrete first step is to give the municipalities better opportunities to allocate street space to car-sharing. There are good examples, but the tools are lacking today.

I would like to conclude by saying that the transport sector determines whether the climate goals are met. With today's politics, the transition is going too slowly. Clearer steering measures, a faster pace, and a policy that holds together climate responsibility, industrial development, and jobs in Sweden and Europe are required.

(Applause)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I must intervene in this debate a little bit.

It is interesting to listen to the member, when the reasoning is based on that we should increase the costs for ordinary people out in the countryside. That is what this whole reasoning boils down to: People are to be forced to change vehicles, and people are to be forced to invest large sums of money in a vehicle that they fundamentally cannot afford.

We can look at the reasoning that the previous government pursued. It hit with full force, and we got sky-high inflation that hits every single individual out there very hard. Interest rates went up. It is precisely that policy the member wants to reintroduce, which I find very strange.

It also becomes a matter of conscience. The truck transports and freight transports often take the blame for these concerns, but no truck rolling out on the roads does so because someone thinks it is so desperately fun to drive a truck. Instead, there is a customer at the other end who has ordered a product, which is what each and every one of us does every time we enter a store and buy something. It could be food, clothes, a new hammer, or whatever it may be – as soon as we buy something, we indirectly order a new transport.

Therefore, it becomes a matter of conscience for the member whether she reduces her private consumption in order to thereby reduce transport on the roads. It would indeed be one way to go if we are to reduce transport in the country.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to listen to Thomas Morell.

You in the Sweden Democrats sound as if you are constantly in opposition, Thomas Moreell, even though you are the prerequisite for the Swedish government consisting of Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals. You always speak as if you were sitting on the substitutes' bench. It is interesting to note.

Then I just want to say that the Social Democrats are for growth. We are for jobs. We are for Sweden and Europe being able to strengthen their competitiveness and growth and get more jobs in Europe. We do not speak of trucks or freight transport as a concern, but we say the same thing as the transport companies: We think it is important to move more goods from road to rail but also to get more heavy trucks that can drive on sufficiently safe roads.

It is like this: politics is about will and choice. One can choose to lower taxes for those who already have it good, but one could also choose something else. If, for example, you had not lowered the reduction obligation, you could instead have implemented other reforms that specifically strengthen and support the people who today cannot afford to buy an electric car. That choice, however, was not made by the Sverigedemokraterna and the government; instead, you chose to lower the taxes.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now, it was not that I was conducting a discussion on whether we cooperate with the government or not, but I asked the member a question about the Social Democrats' view on how to handle this transition. The starting point of my question was the effect of the policy that the previous government pursued.

The Speaker says that the Social Democrats are for growth – great, so am I! But it also requires that the possibility for efficient transport increases, and what the previous government did was focus so much on high-speed trains that it missed the maintenance of the railway. Therefore, it results in the fact that the industry today chooses to opt out of trains because they do not work. You have a policy that does not hang together, Carina Ödebrink. You must see cause and effect. If you do not maintain the railway, you cannot shift freight onto rail transport from trucks.

There is also another effect in this. Just as the previous government conducted the policy, they created conditions for illegal professional traffic on our roads, which pushed out the conditions for the railway companies to run transports. It was, in fact, much cheaper to hire a Bulgarian who drives for half the price compared to a Swedish trucking company – and also drives significantly cheaper than, for example, Green Cargo can do.

You must understand what happens when, from some ideology floating up among the clouds, decisions are made that strike directly against the transport industry. You must come down to earth and see how the system works.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I feel very secure that our policy is firmly anchored in people's everyday lives. If you go out and ask people on the street, you get the answer from the vast majority that they want to be part of the climate transition. They understand and realize that the climate issue is the defining issue of our time.

Therefore, politics must create the conditions for people to be able to participate, but the Sweden Democrats and the government choose not to do that. They choose to lower taxes instead of investing in reforms that build growth, create competitiveness and more jobs, and simultaneously solve the climate issue. This is not about things that stand in opposition to each other; one can actually do both. One can choose that, but it is not what the Sweden Democrats choose.

It is also interesting to note, as we now approach the end of this parliamentary term, that the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna spend most of their time talking about what happened previously. That can naturally have its relevance, but I hear very little about what has actually been done during the nearly four years that they have sat and been able to change things. Apparently, they have been sitting on the substitutes' bench.

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! The reason I requested the floor is that I want to get an answer regarding one of the reservations that the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party have in common. In the reservation, a discussion is made that they do not think the vehicle inspection market functions in Sweden and that they can even imagine re-regulating this, that is, nationalizing the inspection activities again.

The inspection activity was deregulated in 2010, when we opened the market to entry. Since then, an enormous number of inspection stations have emerged all over Sweden. Availability has increased significantly, and the number of stations has increased. The National Audit Office has noted this in its report. The distance to an inspection station has decreased from 14 kilometers to 10 kilometers.

My question is first and foremost the following. One thought, then, that this was not working, and so one took over power in 2014. One then had eight years to re-regulate and nationalize the vehicle inspection in Sweden but did nothing about it, despite not thinking that it works. Then one ends up in opposition, and then one writes an agreement with other parties about now potentially nationalizing the activity again.

Why didn't you use the eight years you had if you were truly serious about nationalizing the vehicle inspection, Carina Ödebrink? And do you have serious plans to re-regulate and nationalize Svensk Bilprovning?

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The difference between, on one hand, me and the Social Democrats and on the other hand Sten Bergheden and the Moderates is that we believe that the market is extraordinarily good for Sweden's growth and competitiveness. The market can be a good servant but is not always an equally good master. That is what we take note of when we reserve ourselves on this area.

Just as I said in my speech, this is a socially important function. Given how things look right now, it is therefore very important that the state sets requirements. Now we have a privatized market – we have that in many other areas as well – and even though one can work for it, it is not always so simple to roll something back once you have opened the gates for another order of things. We do, however, think it is important that the state has control over a socially important function.

In the follow-up that we have been made aware of, it is generally said that accessibility has increased, but that it looks a bit different. Other community services or state services may have disappeared, and in that case, accessibility has not improved. I think one must be able to see this as well and not just have a black-and-white view on things. Reality is a bit more nuanced than that.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

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

I am very surprised, because I was there during the time when we stood in queues. There was no time at Bilprovningen. They actually had very poor finances at that time and could not have the same opening hours as today. They streamlined their organization. It did not go particularly well at all. There were long queues all spring; when people were to inspect their caravans, motorcycles and other things, they received no appointments.

Today it is moving along. There are queues, but people have the opportunity to choose a time that means they do not need to take time off from work. They can work instead of standing in line at Bilprovningen waiting for a possible drop-in time. Very many things have improved.

Carina Ödebrink says that it is difficult to roll back something that one has started, Madam Speaker, but you had eight years to move this back. If it is difficult to move such an activity back in eight years, I do not really know how fast one would be able to work if one were to get power again.

The reason we are bringing up what you in the Social Democrats and your government did during your eight years is that you no longer had support for what you did during that time. You lost the election in 2022 because people were not satisfied with your policy. It is clear that we are curious. If you intend to continue from where you left off last time, the voters need to find out in time. Are you going to nationalize operations again? Are you going to raise taxes so that you can purchase 623 inspection stations around the country and make them state-owned? Is some administration going to sit and handle this part administratively?

Do the Social Democrats intend to invest in nationalizing Svensk Bilprovning again if they win the election?

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Last year, I believe, we dealt with a government proposition on tightening the requirements regarding the vetting of members who sit on the boards of inspection bodies. Mistakes or irregularities can occur in all activities, regardless of whether they are public or private, but this still demonstrates the importance of having control over such an important social function as vehicle inspection is. I do not think one can turn a blind eye to the fact that there is room and opportunity for those who perhaps do not always have clean hands to engage in this activity. Therefore, the state's oversight is incredibly important.

If one mismanages this, one should not conduct this type of activity; I think that is fundamental. The Moderates and Sten Bergheden sing the market's praises in all situations. I am a bit more nuanced when it comes to this, because it is not black or white.

I probably shouldn't ask a question now when the member cannot answer it, but Sten Bergheden was very clear that the Moderaterna continue to stand on the side of car owners. I wonder which car owners it is about. Do you only stand behind those who drive in gasoline- or diesel-powered cars? There are surely many Moderate voters – and voters who vote for other parties that belong to the government base – who would gladly want to be part of the climate transition, but I don't quite see that this is what the Moderaterna are talking about. It is important.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating road traffic and vehicle issues. It is primarily a committee report in which many motions are addressed. I want to move for the rejection of the motions and for the approval of the proposal in the report.

We have today a government that has made a powerful investment when it comes to infrastructure, especially on the roadside. This investment and transition of how the resources are used will result in the potholes being built away over twelve years. It is a deliberate strategy to facilitate for road users and to address the maintenance debt.

One of the major differences between the government and, for example, the largest opposition party, the Social Democrats, is that the government is truly investing in removing the maintenance debt. In the Social Democrats' budget, they are actually leaving money on the side of the road, which would mean that the maintenance debt remains in twelve years. I think that is deficient.

From the government's side, we are also investing in BK4 roads and in individual roads. We are making a general overhaul that is about increasing mobility. We do this while simultaneously trying in different ways to work towards ensuring that the environmental problems, or the environmental cost, that exist within the transport sector will decrease over time.

I will now go into some of the different thoughts contained in the motions. For example, a fossil-free vehicle fleet, fossil-free refueling, and charging infrastructure are highlighted. Regarding that entire block of motions, the fact is that the government is already working on these issues.

Another part, which I can sometimes be a bit surprised by when I am here in the Riksdag, concerns the fact that the discussion in some way is about it being us here in the house who are to solve everything ourselves. It is not really that simple, however. If we are to be able to solve these large and important issues, it is a matter of shared responsibility. The state has a responsibility. Municipalities and regions have their responsibility. Energy companies will have responsibility. The same applies to housing associations and individuals.

What do I mean by this? I have, for example, spoken with friends who have wanted to get an electric car. They, however, live in a rental apartment or a condominium and simply cannot access the opportunity to change vehicles.

It can also apply to people living in villa areas. It is not just about electricity, but it can also be about wanting to switch over so that one has ground source heating, water heating, or the like. If too many holes have been drilled in an area, one cannot get that opportunity.

The tragic thing is that we see exactly the same phenomenon when it comes to electricity. One can be informed that they are the last one in the area – otherwise, the entire power station must be replaced.

I may think that this is an issue that we talk very little about. I am well aware that it is a different debate, Madam Speaker, but if we are serious about achieving electrification, we must answer these questions. Then we must answer how the technical system is to function, how the energy can be transmitted when the wind is still, and how we get a controllable and stable electricity system.

I am well aware that this is not fully negotiated and that we are not there when it comes to all the details, but I believe, for example, that small-scale hydropower is a solution. Those who work with small-scale hydropower today produce the equivalent of a reactor. If they were allowed to use the money that currently exists in the water fund to renovate instead of for legal disputes, they could develop this to the equivalent of two reactors in the area where Sweden needs the most energy.

I am, therefore, well aware that we are not there yet. There are discussions, and there will continue to be discussions. However, that does not prevent me, as a Christian Democrat, from being clear that there is a solution here that is actually faster than both offshore wind power and new nuclear power. Sometimes the debate is ongoing about two giants that both have the problem of taking a long time and having high costs, while there is a simpler solution that we, for some strange reason, do not utilize.

Other topics in the report are autonomous vehicles and the promotion of car-sharing, and it is combined with parking spaces and accessibility.

I would like to point out, with all humility, that in a medium-sized city, 80–85 percent of those who are going to work, shopping, taking children to school, going to practice, meeting someone they are fond of, or going to a restaurant use some vehicle, most often a car. We are not glossing over that.

The studies that exist on self-driving vehicles show that in large cities it may lead to a reduction in traffic, but for those of us who live in the countryside, it could lead to the exact opposite. If one lives outside a city and does not own a private vehicle, a self-driving car implies four trips instead of two. It is therefore not quite so simple that the new technology will solve all the problems we wish to solve.

When it comes to mobility and parking, we have another problem, and that is that we have a policy today that complicates parking. This affects above all everyone who has a shop and everyone who travels and shops because the transport companies cannot get through with goods. More and more municipalities are removing possible parking spaces, especially around the large cities, which complicates the flow of goods and is therefore negative for those who live in the city. Here we therefore need to have a discussion that is more about mobility and less about shutting others out.

I am pleased that many motions address cultural heritage in the form of older vehicles, whether they are mopeds, motorcycles, cars, or tractors – my father had an old Volvo T34 that ran on kerosene. I am not good with old machines, but there are people who are really skilled at keeping this cultural heritage alive. At home in Uddevalla, an agricultural fair is held where there are even internal combustion engines running. It is certainly not very environmentally friendly, but there is a charm in seeing the old technology. I am glad that the government and several parties took the discussion to the EU, so let us thank ourselves for getting rid of the worst nonsense that was on its way.

The motions regarding road signs are exciting, and it is no secret that I believe modern technology and flexible signs are the future. That does not prevent me from moving for the motions to be rejected today. But in the political conversation, the drop hollows out the stone, and I believe that we will get more and more new technology on our roads.

Let me reconnect to the debate we had last week about the roads being safe. If you ride a motorcycle, there should not be a danger to life just because we have too many wire railings. One can also work with under-gliding protection and so on.

I feel that we are in agreement here. But the fact is that in a government position, one allocates a certain amount of money, and you in the opposition are completely right when you pursue us and point out that more should be done.

Madam Speaker! A more politically charged question is that of regulatory measures. Here I am a bit surprised by the Center Party's position. I see the Center Party as part of the bourgeois family, and it usually does not introduce regulatory measures just like that.

We Christian Democrats were certainly positive towards the ethanol initiative, but I must admit that it did not go very well. We were also positive towards bonus-malus, but in hindsight we see that it did not work. Yes, in one way it worked well: fewer bought diesel cars, and more bought electric cars. But the whole thing ran at such a large deficit that for economic reasons one had to start steering in it.

Another interesting thing after some subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles have been removed is that the price on the market has gone down. What is the use of using tax money to push up a vehicle's price? I will not argue about the fact that our red friends here in the house think it is logical. But I actually do not understand the Center Party in these matters.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the motions.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (-) agreed.

(cont. § 7)

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