Response to interpellation 2022/23:271 on driving ability with visual field loss
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the issue of driving ability in the case of visual field loss is complex and requires extensive regulatory changes to enable practical driving tests 1. The Government is currently analyzing a VTI report but has not yet taken a position on the next steps as the report lacks a preparatory basis 1. KD emphasizes that road safety must be balanced against the individual's needs 1 and that the knowledge base on how practical tests should be designed is insufficient. S argues that Sweden should harmonize with other countries that allow practical tests 2. S believes that many are severely affected by the current rules and that there is a lack of scientific evidence that small visual field changes affect driving ability 2 3. S wants to see a prompt commitment to creating a fair process 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Gunilla Svantorp has asked me if I intend to act so that Sweden harmonizes its driving license requirements in accordance with other EU countries.
The report from VTI that Gunilla Svantorp refers to contains no proposals for changes that can be implemented directly. Instead, the report identifies a number of additional investigation steps that need to be taken in order to proceed with the issue and so that proposals for more detailed design can be developed. The report also highlights the great complexity of the issue. A large number of regulatory changes are required to open up the possibility for practical driving tests in the exception handling.
The Government has not yet taken a position on what is an appropriate next step. In order to determine this, the report is now being analyzed within the Government Offices.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! I wrote this interpellation because every year it is well over 2,000 people who have their driver's licenses revoked precisely because of visual field loss and also because Sweden's interpretation of the EU's driving license directive differs from other countries. Other countries allow for a practical test that assesses driving ability, but Sweden does not.
The answer we have just heard says that the Minister says it is a complex issue, and one can indeed say that it is. The Minister also says that rule changes are required and that the government has not yet taken a position.
Yes, it is a very complex issue, especially for all those who lose their driver's license every year and who, because of that, can also happen to lose their job and their income. The investigation that VTI has conducted shows that people experience a deterioration in their well-being, and one can actually say that many of these people have their lives quite ruined. What is also seen is that many feel a distrust towards the state and authorities.
The interesting question in this, I think, is still why Sweden's handling differs from other countries. Why do we make a different interpretation of the EU's directives? We have also, over the years, had a pilot project which showed that 70 percent of those who had had their license revoked passed the driving test – a full 70 percent.
I still think that is somewhat true upon reflection, and therefore I want to ask the Minister how he views the fact that we handle this issue differently than other countries.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Just as Gunilla Svantorp expresses, I want to emphasize that I have great understanding that it can be a personal tragedy for the person who has their driver's license revoked. However, the individual citizen's need for accessibility and mobility must be balanced against the traffic safety for drivers, passengers, and other road users, and it is based on that trade-off that the traffic medical requirements are designed.
Gunilla Svantorp mentions the figure of 2,000 people per year who have their driver's licenses revoked due to visual field defects. The statistics from the VTI report that Svantorp refers to instead indicate that it concerns approximately 1,000 individuals per year. This does not make the issue any less; it is still too many of these individuals, of course, a personal tragedy and an urgent issue to work on.
VTI has presented various investigation steps in the report that one can see could be taken. Unfortunately, the report lacks preparatory documents. It also does not contain any clear questions to take a position on, which is the reason why the report has not been able to be referred.
We need to have respect for the fact that it is a complex issue, just as Gunilla Svantorp says, and even if it overall concerns a small number of driving license holders, it involves an exception handling that requires extensive resources. In the VTI report, there are various steps to proceed with this, which also include the issue that Gunilla Svantorp highlights regarding the possibilities that exist for exceptions in the driving license directive at the EU level.
It is something that also needs to be carefully analyzed based on the VTI report, but the report does not contain preparatory documents and has therefore not been able to be referred.
Gunilla Svantorp mentions 70 percent. But the 70 percent who, according to previous tests, showed passing results does not by definition mean that 70 percent of those who have had their driving licenses revoked would get their driving licenses back. The simulator tests at VTI were costly. It costs a lot to carry out these tests, and it can therefore be assumed that those who joined the queue themselves judged they had good chances of passing the simulator test. It does not change the figure of 70 percent, but it puts the figure in the right context, I mean to say, Madam Speaker.
I appreciate the member's commitment, and what I have also said earlier in my response is that we are now looking at the issue from the perspective of VTI's report and analyzing what is the next and the best step to take.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to add that the Swedish Glaucoma Society, which is a subdivision of the Swedish Ophthalmological Society, says two things in a letter that I know has reached the Minister. Among other things, they say that there is a lack of scientific evidence to claim that these small visual field changes affect driving ability.
It is one thing. The other thing they say is that the perimeter tool cannot be used to assess the ability to handle traffic situations.
It is, as has been said, a very complex issue, and that we use non-scientific evidence distinguishes us in relation to how other countries do. Furthermore, visual impairment is the only one of 14 diagnostic groups that is not assessed based on a functional assessment, such as a driving test would be.
I think it is remarkable that the Minister does not show a will. Where does the Minister want to go? It is clear that the report did not show exactly how we should proceed, but it still showed some steps forward on how one could harmonize with other countries, something that I raised in my question.
I do not think we have received an answer today as to where the Minister wants to go with this issue, which is so important for so many people who actually get a changed life situation as a result of a deteriorated vision.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I can assure Gunilla Svantorp that this is an urgent issue. Just as I also said in my interpellation answer and first contribution here, I have great understanding for what Gunilla Svantorp emphasizes, that this affects the people involved in a dramatic way. It affects life in a very negative way, and that is also why we are looking at VTI's report. We need to see what is the next step.
Taking a next step is a matter of will. What is important to emphasize is that VTI states in the report that the research literature shows that the knowledge base on how individuals with visual field loss should be assessed is not sufficient. In the proposals that VTI submits, they highlight the need for further research and investigation to achieve a traffic-safe and reliable system. For example, there is a lack of knowledge on how practical tests should be designed.
Gunilla Svantorp highlights the need for evidence. That is exactly what VTI also does in the report, and it is based on that that we can then make wise decisions that move this issue forward for these people. As mentioned, it affects many in their everyday lives when it hits here, many times perhaps as a very unfortunate bomb that affects very much. I hope it emerges with all desired clarity that the intention is to see what can be the next step to alleviate and solve the problem.
What appears from VTI's report is that the countries that allow practical driving tests set specific requirements that must also be met in addition to the driving test. This also deserves a deeper analysis at the EU level. In the Netherlands, for example, no exceptions are made for fields of vision that are less than 90 degrees horizontally - to provide such an example.
This is now included in the analysis work, and it is an important issue for the government. I look forward to returning and having a continued good dialogue, and I appreciate the member's commitment.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! I also appreciate this conversation.
I really hope that what the Minister said earlier in an interpellation debate about the former S-government being a bit slow-moving – which I naturally do not agree with – does not apply to the Minister here, and that the issue will be handled promptly given how many people are affected.
We must be able to change things that can obviously be done in other ways. I hope that the Minister will provide a statement on the intended direction. At the same time, we can ask ourselves why we handle visual impairment differently in this country. Likewise, I wonder why visual impairment is the only diagnostic group that is not assessed based on function. I believe we all want a quality-assured, legally secure, and fair process. But we also want a direction forward that does not result in people having to give up their cards unnecessarily. I look forward to the next step from the Minister.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The member can be assured that we are working hard on the issue. There is also a parliamentary referral on the area. It is an urgent issue, not only because there is a referral. But a referral is an expression that the issue is prioritized - at least by the previous mandate period's majority in the Riksdag. We are handling this, and the issue is prioritized. I look forward to reporting back.
Madam Speaker! I appreciate the commitment and that we can have a consensus that the issue is important for those affected.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.