Response to interpellation 2023/24:335 on the chaos on the E22

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Mr. Speaker! On the grounds of the situation that arose on the E22 between January 3 and 4 this year, I have asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing what he and the government intend to do to ensure that a similar situation does not arise, whether he and the government will take the initiative to have the sequence of events thoroughly investigated, and what conclusions he and the government are drawing already now from what occurred. The interpellation has been handed over to me.

That over 1,000 vehicles with passengers were stranded for over a day on a Swedish European road as a result of a severe but still limited snowstorm can be described as nothing other than a failure. The Government can state that deficiencies arose in the management that need to be addressed by the relevant public actors to ensure that a similar situation does not arise again.

In Sweden, the society's crisis preparedness is based, among other things, on the so-called principle of responsibility. The principle of responsibility means that the person who has responsibility for an activity under normal conditions also has corresponding responsibility during crisis situations. The responsibility includes taking the measures required for the activity to be able to function during a crisis.

The principle of responsibility also applies in the civil defense's planning for high alert and war, as well as for the management of consequences of events during high alert and war. In light of the events on the E22 at the beginning of January, the government can state that in the continued upgrading of the civil defense, it is important that there are no ambiguities regarding roles and responsibilities. Society must be able to cope with complex situations with many involved actors under difficult conditions. The government does not rule out that measures may need to be taken if such a need arises.

The Government called the responsible heads of agencies and representatives of the municipal rescue services two weeks ago to obtain accounts of why the operation took so long and what measures would need to be taken to avoid a similar situation arising again. With this meeting, the Government also wanted to emphasize the importance of agencies and others whose areas of responsibility are affected by a peacetime crisis situation acting promptly in these types of incidents in accordance with the laws and regulations that govern these actors' obligations during crises, high alert, and ultimately in war.

The situation on the E22 was a regional incident, but the lessons from the handling can also be considered at a national level within the framework of the responsibilities of the authorities responsible for preparedness. The County Administrative Board in Skåne County and Trafikverket intend to evaluate the incident. The Government is continuously following the authorities' work with crisis management and the developments occurring to strengthen the capacity for handling crises and high preparedness.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! On January 3 at 9 o'clock in the morning, a truck got stuck on the E22 outside Hörby in Skåne. Hundreds of cars then filled the road, and soon there was a total standstill and almost 1,000 cars with drivers and passengers were stuck on the E22.

Mr. Speaker! As the Minister said, what happened cannot be described as anything other than a monumental failure. People were stuck in their cars for up to a day, and it is a pure miracle that no one was seriously injured when the E22 was completely blocked.

The coordination of authority resources failed, and it is evident that no one took leadership or responsibility in the situation that arose, in any case not in the way that was desirable. In the days after this happened, the minister responsible for the nation's infrastructure was completely missing in action. A text message with a brief comment was all that came from him. The minister is still, appropriately, missing without a trace and refuses to answer the Riksdag's questions about the chaos on the E22.

This interpellation handed the minister over to a colleague in the government, and the transport committee he refuses to meet. The only thing missing is the sign over the Government Offices: Dangerous line.

A little over two weeks after the events, the authorities were summoned by the government to answer what had happened, and I am pleased that this interpellation has gained momentum in certain parts of the Government Offices.

Mr. Speaker! In the answer, the Minister refers to the principle of responsibility, which means that the person responsible for an order when there is, so to speak, peace and quiet must also be responsible for it in times of crisis. That is commendable, but it is obvious that something has not functioned in this case. The chain of command has obviously been unclear, and we do not know what the Minister for Infrastructure did during those days, and we also do not seem to be getting an answer to that.

The government has, as stated, since the events summoned the responsible authorities and conveyed criticism and frustration. I have tried to call the Ministry of Defence a number of times to find out if any minutes were kept during the meeting, but the Ministry of Defence's registrar does not want to pick up the phone. One can, if one wants to be a bit mean, wonder what it means for the government's alleged decisiveness when there does not even seem to be order and decisiveness at the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister has now spoken with the authorities and will await the investigations by Trafikverket and the County Administrative Board. We must hope that both of these investigations carefully examine the work and responsibility of both agencies during the 24 hours that people were stranded on the E22 in Skåne.

In the answer to the interpellation, we receive no information on whether the government intends to evaluate its own role and its own actions when this collapse of preparedness - for lack of a better word - took place. But it is, after all, the government that governs the realm and bears the ultimate responsibility.

The Swedish government bears the ultimate responsibility that hundreds of people had to sit and freeze in their cars on the E22 for up to a day. Is there a culture of decisiveness in the government? Is the government really prepared to at least seriously deliberate and self-critically reflect on its own role? It does not appear from either reality or the answer to the interpellation.

(Applause)

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

Ewa Pihl Krabbe (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Magnusson has described what it can look like when the cooperation between different authorities does not function in a vulnerable situation. I will touch upon another aspect of the situation.

In the chaos that occurred in connection with the snowstorm, there was naturally a focus on all the at least a thousand people who were stranded in their cars for a very long time and on the efforts to rescue them from there. Tracked vehicles eventually extracted them, and they were also helpful when an ambulance got stuck near the highway.

The situation could, however, have ended very badly if, for example, a child had been born at the central hospital in Kristianstad with an acute heart problem that, due to its condition, would require a very rapid transport to the hospital in Lund for surgery. During the days that the traffic difficulties occurred, fortunately, no such acute situation occurred at the hospital in Kristianstad. But there must be a preparedness for this to happen when Skåne is hit by similar weather and traffic chaos.

Region Skåne unfortunately has no ambulance helicopter agreement. But at Kristianstad Airport, the Swedish Maritime Administration's rescue helicopter is stationed, and we in northeastern Skåne are very happy about that. The helicopter is financed by the state to 30 percent and by the maritime sector for the remaining part, and it is intended for sea and air rescue.

Mr. Speaker! In these types of situations, the rescue helicopter could be life-saving for a seriously ill person who urgently needs to be transported to a hospital in Lund or Malmö for surgery. There are alternative routes, if they are passable, but it takes significantly longer to travel by ambulance in such weather conditions than by helicopter. It should be part of the civil preparedness that there are resources available to use in these types of extraordinary situations. But then, of course, the operation must be dimensioned to handle crisis situations, and there must be some form of regulating agreement. We have had problems with this previously: that there have not been agreements when a service has been performed.

I want to ask the Minister how the Minister intends to solve the preparedness to ensure that the seriously ill can get to the right hospital if such a situation were to be repeated.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to thank my party colleague Adrian Magnusson, who has submitted the interpellation, not least considering that we Social Democrats in the Transport Committee were denied the opportunity to ask questions to the Minister for Infrastructure regarding exactly the current incident and regarding what measures the government intends to take.

I also want to thank you for the minister's answer. In a way, I think it is honest and insightful when one speaks of a failure – I am not quite used to that type of interpellation answer in the committee I sit in. But despite that, there are things that I want to take note of.

I have held political assignments for a very long time at the municipal and regional levels. It is always the politicians who have the ultimate responsibility. And in difficult situations, in crises but also in war, it is important that the politicians step forward and take the responsibility they have. This government has actually done the opposite. It was absent, and it was unclear where parts of the government were.

As several before me have said, it was only luck that nothing truly serious happened during these hours on the E22.

The picture when it comes to what occurred is that the coordination between the authorities did not work. There were uncertainties regarding powers. There was a fear of making decisions because one could be questioned. Measures came too late.

In the answer, the minister says that it is important with a continued upgrading of civil defense, that there should be no ambiguities regarding roles and responsibilities, and that one is also prepared to take measures if necessary. Therefore, I want to ask a question to the minister. Given what has happened, I think there is reason to already draw conclusions and perhaps also point out measures that can be taken here and now.

We have some winter left before it becomes spring, so this can happen again. The day after we in the committee raised the question of whether we wanted to call for the Minister for Infrastructure, a similar, but not as serious, situation arose out on our roads.

I believe we can all testify that winter road maintenance has deteriorated over time. I live along the E4, south of Jönköping, and I can clearly see this there. The E22 became a concrete example of what can happen.

I see that the current situation is a consequence of the fact that the road administration and the transport administration have been torn apart. Parts of the authorities have been corporatized. Knowledge, experience, and equipment have disappeared. Privatization and deregulation were supposed to make socially useful activities cheaper and more efficient. It has actually become the opposite. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

I would like to have an answer to the question of what conclusions are drawn and what measures can be taken here and now.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since the 2014 election, I have had the great honor of representing the Social Democrats here in the Swedish Riksdag. I also have the great privilege of representing the northern and eastern constituency of Skåne. In my constituency, the E22 is directly crucial for people to make their daily lives work.

In the eastern parts of Skåne, the infrastructure is frequently under criticism. There are very few railway stations and railway lines here. This means that the E22 becomes crucial for people to be able to travel to and from work, to and from school, to and from relatives and friends, and to and from healthcare. When the E22 gets congested, it affects large parts of eastern Skåne, from north to south. And it affects very many people in Skåne.

It is difficult for those of us who were not stuck in traffic on January 3 to imagine how it affected people both physically and mentally. It is difficult to understand the total feeling of uncertainty, and it is difficult to understand the anxiety and fear that many who were stuck in the cars felt.

The stories from January 3rd are, however, many, for it was many who were stuck in traffic. They are stories of how thousands of cars got stuck in traffic. They are stories of how people had to melt snow to get fluids into themselves. They are stories of how people with diabetes sat terrified in their cars because they did not know how they would manage the situation if they were to have an attack. They are stories of how the cold at night made people sit in their cars and be afraid of actually freezing to death. They are stories of how people had to find solutions to relieve their needs while they sat stuck for almost a full day at the same time as there was storm and cold outside. They are stories of a nightmare day.

What has been recurring in these stories is the total lack of information. It is a disappointment that there were no one who at least knocked on the cars and asked: How are you managing? Do you have food? Do you have water? Are you managing the cold? People did not even knock to see if the people in the cars were alive. This has people experienced as an incredibly great worry - it is about the future and about what one had to experience.

These stories, Mr. Speaker, have also contributed to the fact that we Social Democrats now believe that we must ensure that we secure our roads and strengthen the preparedness.

Is a government responsible for it snowing? No, it is not, of course. On the other hand, it is clear that some of the proposals that we present and, above all, that we have presented could have made a difference. There, the government has a responsibility.

Already this summer, we demanded that there should be a readiness general to coordinate relief efforts between county administrative boards, municipalities, regions, and other relevant authorities. But the government chose not to listen. It could have made a difference in a situation like this.

In addition, we mean that other things also need to be addressed, other requirements and all other preparedness, in order to handle such a situation. If we in Sweden are to have good preparedness, we need to have a reliable and well-functioning infrastructure. Everyone in Sweden must be able to rely on the roads and the railways. But that is not how the situation looks. In Sweden, both railways and roads are indeed congested all too often. The E22 is unfortunately a glaring example.

Many beautiful words come from the minister and the government regarding this situation. But the fact is that the government, with its policy, is dismantling large parts of our infrastructure and is not doing what is required. At the same time, people are urged to take responsibility if the crisis and perhaps the war comes. But still, one chooses to reduce the state's responsibility. Exactly what signals does this send in times of uncertainty?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I feel compelled to intervene in the discussion. I have, in fact, in this very rostrum, had several debates with the former Minister for Infrastructure, Tomas Eneroth. He is not entirely unfamiliar, I can think.

It is almost embarrassing to hear the Social Democrats' mocking of the government and what happened on the E22. I have had several debates with the former Minister for Infrastructure regarding the deficiencies in winter road maintenance. The last one was after a professional driver had skidded off the road and killed himself. Then I received an answer from the then Minister for Infrastructure that we have a well-functioning and modern way of managing winter road maintenance.

I have nearly 50 years of experience being out on the roads and have driven almost all conceivable vehicle combinations. I have seen the development over the years. One thing is certain: Trafikverket has invented the world's best ice machine. That is where we have the concern. They rely on the electronic meteorologists in the ditch and on someone at a computer screen sending out resources to plow the road. They come out too late, and the efforts are too small.

If the resources had been deployed in time, the situation on the E22 would never have occurred. It is one of the reasons why the Transport Committee wants to question Trafikverket and not the government. It is Trafikverket that manages the operations. That is where the deficiencies lie, and that is where we must have the focus. If they had sent out resources on the road, the situation would never have occurred.

You Social Democrats have defended this. You even think that it has been a good way to manage winter road maintenance. What happened on the E22 was by no means the only thing that happened that day. There were similar situations on the E4, E20, and E6 as well as on national road 50, national road 60, and national road 62. The difference was that there were not as many vehicles that got stuck there. But the situations were the same. On the E20, there was also a standstill in Finnerödjabacken, which is a well-known place.

In all the debates I have had with the Social Democrats and the former Minister for Infrastructure, it was claimed that it worked well. Now we know that it does not.

To show that the biggest disaster area is actually the Social Democrats, I urge you to read what the Swedish National Audit Office writes regarding infrastructure planning. It says: "In the assignment to the Transport Administration, the government also specified certain specific measures that would be included in the Transport Administration's proposal. The Swedish National Audit Office notes that the government had no basis regarding these measures when the government decided this directive. The costs for the measures were subsequently found to exceed the available financial framework within the planning period."

If one reads the entire report, which you are welcome to do, one can observe that the Social Democrats have absolutely zero clue when it comes to infrastructure. That resulted in what happened on the E22. It is a direct consequence of how you have managed the infrastructure. And here you sit and mock. It is deplorable.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! This debate, which my colleague Adrian Magnusson has requested to have with the Minister for Infrastructure, concerns a nightmare day in Skåne. However, it did not only affect people in Skåne. Some from Blekinge and the rest of the country were also affected in different ways.

It is noteworthy that a member stands here and says that it is the Social Democrats' fault, but I will not debate with another member today. I can, however, state that he at least had to debate with the Social Democratic Minister for Infrastructure several times. It is worth mentioning.

This is about a nightmare day during the first week of January. Workers, tourists, residents, and emergency services personnel were stuck and suffered for up to a day, just as has been established here previously.

The Transport Authority's personnel shall, at least according to the media, have said at a work meeting that he had no knowledge of this. He knew more about train traffic and was perhaps not the right person to be there.

The Minister for Civil Defence is taking this debate tonight, which is commendable. But are these the minister's questions? The Armed Forces did, after all, enter with their armored vehicles quite late in the process.

When did the Minister for Civil Defence receive responsibility for this issue? Was it already on 3 January, or did it come later, when the Minister for Infrastructure refused to take these questions? If the Minister for Civil Defence received responsibility for these questions as early as 3 January, I wonder what measures were proposed by the government and the Minister for Civil Defence in that acute phase?

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that people here in the chamber allow it to be suggested that the Minister for Infrastructure is keeping away or is not taking the discussion in the chamber. Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson is the minister who answers the most interpellations in this chamber. If one drafts an interpellation that falls under the Minister for Infrastructure's area of responsibility, he will come here and answer it. I think he has proven that during the year he has held his office.

This interpellation is, however, formulated in such a way that it asks how the government intends to handle the experiences and conclusions of what has happened. The reason why it is I who am answering that question is that it was I who gathered all the involved actors after this event. I have, as mentioned earlier, described it as a failure. It was, in fact, a capital failure.

One needs to have some things clear, and I am convinced that all Social Democratic members are fundamentally aware of how the Swedish administrative model works. The government is not operational in the way that is being feigned. The government governs the agency through instructions, ordinances, and agency mandates.

We do not, therefore, have an administrative model that involves the government stepping in operationally in an ongoing crisis management that persists for less than a day. In those contexts where the government has an active role in crisis management, we are dealing with more prolonged crises that require agency decisions, agency mandates, and new instructions so that the administrative agencies can fulfill their operational missions.

One might think that representatives of a party that has held government power for much of the 20th century should be aware of that by this point. I note many downcast looks in the benches, but this is, therefore, an attempt to make something into what it is not.

The question then is how the government will handle the conclusions of this, that is, the authorities' failure to handle the incident in an adequate manner.

Yes, for the first thing, we note that a different leadership culture was needed, which I made clear already during the meeting I held, and a clearer understanding in these organizations that one needs to take a mandate in such situations. I do not want to witness it once again that authorities divide over who has or does not have the mandate to cut up a wire fence. It simply is not sufficient. I have been very clear about that.

Secondly, we will task MSB with conducting an evaluation - not only of this incident but also of other crises that have occurred during the year. It is not necessarily about crises where the management has been deficient.

We are of the opinion that one can learn something from every crisis management. Therefore, MSB will be tasked with conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the crisis management regarding both E22 as well as the landslide at Stenungsund and the oil spill in Pukaviksbukten to see what conclusions we can draw collectively and achieve better management in the operational phase. It is indeed in the operational phase that the authorities that have the operational responsibility must be sharper than what we saw unfold at E22.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister does not need to worry about me looking down. I was looking at my papers to see if I had said that the government should have taken the operational responsibility. I did not find that, because I did not say it, but I understand that the rehearsed talking points take precedence over answering what I said. I understand that. It can be so.

If we are going to bang some things into each other's heads anyway, I remind you of the Instrument of Government, Chapter 1, Section 6, where it states that the government governs the realm. I think that is something one should keep in mind.

It becomes quite obvious here and almost a bit comical, I would like to assert, how the united right desperately tries to protect the government. The Sweden Democrat member who was up in the speaker's chair even said that during the previous parliamentary term, he certainly called the Minister for Infrastructure and spoke about these issues.

Then it was a political question, and political responsibility would be demanded of a minister. But now, when one is personally supporting the Christian Democratic infrastructure minister, it is suddenly a question about civil servants and bureaucrats and about pointing fingers at the bureaucracy, the director-general of Trafikverket and other officials there. This is nothing other than a practiced political game.

When it was realized where this was heading at the beginning of January, one thought: "How are we going to protect our own cabinet ministers? This could become a rather difficult situation. This could become quite troublesome. It could be that voters in Hörby, Kristianstad, Ystad or Malmö start demanding accountability somewhere. We must quickly be there and point the finger at the bureaucracy in this country, and at the civil servants! We must, with all available means, protect the Minister for Infrastructure and the government from the political effects of this."

I think it becomes obvious in this debate that the right's ambition is to protect ministers at any cost, because I am, as I said, completely certain that a Social Democratic minister would have come here and answered the questions. I do not believe for a moment that the Sweden Democrats would have accepted if a Social Democratic minister had said that they would take this with the Director General of the Transport Administration and that he or she would have to take that responsibility.

It becomes obvious here that the political consequences are to be fought with all possible tools. It is, as said, almost a bit comical.

Holding government office entails a responsibility. Being a minister entails a responsibility. One could perhaps reason that it also entails a responsibility to be vice chairman of a parliamentary committee. One must be prepared to shoulder that responsibility. It is clear with just this crisis, as one may still call it, that one is not quite prepared to shoulder that responsibility, but rather that it is a matter of finding scapegoats somewhere else instead. I think that is regrettable.

If one compares the actions during the previous parliamentary term with the actions during this parliamentary term, it is obvious that it is a matter of political maneuvering. I remind again of the Instrument of Government, Chapter 1, Section 6: It is the government that governs the realm. In a parliamentary democracy, it is reasonable that politicians are held accountable. This applies to both members of parliament and ministers.

The government governs the realm. If there is something in the governance of the realm that fails, it is reasonable that the government is held accountable and comes here to the Riksdag and the Committee on Transport to answer questions, but it is obviously not interesting because the government is apparently to be protected at any cost.

(Applause)

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

Ewa Pihl Krabbe (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the Minister did not answer my question. I am very well aware that the responsibility for medical transports is regional. But only 9 of 21 regions in Sweden have ambulance helicopters for acute transports - however, none closer to Skåne than Gothenburg on the western side and Visby on the eastern flank, and that is far too long in a time-critical situation where one must quickly reach out to transport a patient to the correct level of care. When such a weather and traffic situation arises, someone must step in and take responsibility, and this someone, I believe, is the state. Citizens must be able to be guaranteed this. There must be a readiness.

I will also say that it actually happens that rescue helicopters are used in these types of situations. It has happened. A readiness for it was needed, and an agreement. There have been problems at some point when the region did not want to pay when an acute situation occurred, so I hope that the Minister can contribute to reviewing the possibility of using rescue helicopters, for example, in such difficult traffic situations when there are no ambulance helicopters available.

(Applause)

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that I also did not receive an answer to my question regarding what conclusions the government draws at the current moment, and whether one sees that one perhaps needs to take measures here and now given what happened. There is still some winter left before we drive on snow-free roads.

About a week ago, the Minister made a post on X, formerly Twitter, where he explained the Swedish administrative model just as he also did here just now. I think it may be appropriate to remind how it was when the Minister was in opposition. When it concerned both the Pisa results in 2021 and our many, large discussions about corona, the then opposition highlighted the importance of representatives for the government coming to the Riksdag and accounting for the situation. And they did.

When the government minister sat in the Committee on Industry, it was traded at some point that it is appropriate for the Minister for Energy and Digitalization to appear in the Committee on Industry and report, and that was also done at those occasions. That right, that the minister who has the ultimate responsibility should come to the committee, was denied to us Social Democrats in opposition.

We Social Democrats have demanded an independent review of what happened. We have demanded that the minister come to the committee. But the current government refuses, despite what the government's watchdog sounds like it is doing. I would like to have some further answer to my question.

(Applause)

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Adrian Magnusson for this incredibly important interpellation, which actually highlights so much more than the problems that occurred on January 3. We currently have an SD-led government that demands that citizens be prepared for war and crisis, while at the same time we have a society that cannot even handle these types of crises in an acceptable way. It was a nightmare day on the E22. That is, among other things, what we are talking about today.

Colleagues have said it before me, but I am happy to repeat it again: The government and the state must take their responsibility. We all know that the state must stand strong when people feel weak and vulnerable. It is obvious that the government handles these issues in a way just as tragic as the way it handles welfare. Without a functioning infrastructure, without a functioning welfare, without a functioning healthcare, and without a functioning preparedness, society fails its citizens in situations of crisis.

Our Social Democratic proposals are available to be read. In these issues, my colleagues in the Committee on Transport have put forward proposals regarding, for example, a preparedness general, which I mentioned in my previous post. But it is also about requirements for snow chains for heavy traffic, higher fines and other sanctions when it comes to winter tires for heavy traffic, and so on. These proposals are available to be read, and my urge to the government and the minister is to take note of them. Obviously, there is much more to do. We are at least putting proposals on the table.

(Applause)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is good that you in the Social Democrats are submitting proposals! But you are welcome to come to me and ask, so that you submit proposals that work in practice! The proposals I have seen so far will unfortunately not work.

You stand here and demand accountability from the government. Then one must ask the question: Why did you do nothing yourselves when you held the power of government? The deficiencies in the maintenance of winter roads were pointed out numerous times. People are dying. We experience traffic jams and disruptions in the flows to private individuals and industry. Then you answered that it works perfectly fine. Now you suddenly say that it does not work at all. Then one must ask the question: How are you going to manage? It would have been appropriate if you had done something during the time you held the power of government instead of now standing here and pointing out deficiencies that you actually created yourselves. In the report from the National Audit Office, it is clear that you have no grasp of infrastructure at all. Do not come and mock in these matters, but instead try to familiarize yourselves with this, take responsibility and help out in difficult times! That is something we all need.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! I see the back-slapping here, but one is a bit taken aback when one hears a Sverigedemokrat say that a socialdemokrat who wants to present a proposal should ask a Sverigedemokrat first. That is the speech of an authoritarian rule. Let this be a warning for the future! That is not how we want it.

During this nightmare day, a thousand cars were stuck in the queue with several people in each car. Relatives, colleagues, and others sat at home wondering how it would go. Many of these people are watching the debate today. I do not think they will be particularly impressed that those who now have the responsibility say that everything is the Social Democrats' fault and that it becomes a blame game.

I think the questions to the minister have been clear and direct: Who is responsible? When can responsibility be demanded? What lessons should we draw? I am surprised by the agitation being shown. One becomes totally paralyzed by being asked questions about having responsibility oneself. The government representatives should, of course, be proud of the power they have been given on loan, bear that responsibility and answer the questions that will come here tonight. I repeat my question to the minister for civil defense: When did this issue become the minister's responsibility?

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by answering Ewa Pihl Krabbe's question after having received it twice. The short answer is that typically, one does not fly helicopters in this type of weather due to the risk of icing.

The Social Democratic member is completely right that the government governs the realm. What I tried to explain in my previous contribution here in the rostrum was how the government governs the realm. This circumstance should not be news for the Social Democrats. The government governs the realm through its agencies. The agencies have the operational responsibility.

If it is the case that there are structural problems and errors, the government naturally bears the responsibility to rectify them. It is as is known that Sweden is afflicted with a long series of structural problems and errors as a consequence of how this realm has been governed over time. We are currently working to rectify the structural problems in a long series of areas.

Do I exclude the possibility that there are structural problems at the bottom of this handling? No, I do not. That is why we will allow an independent evaluation of the crisis management efforts to be carried out. This applies not only to this incident but also to other crises that have characterized Sweden during the year. I believe this is completely necessary to become better and to ensure that we have better structures to handle this.

When it comes to the operational management, my perception, which was strengthened by the conversation I had with the authority, is that culture is upstream of structure. What is needed in the organizations concerned is a culture of decisiveness, a sense of responsibility, and a will to do the right thing. Structure is secondary. But we will make structural changes if necessary.

There is an illustrative circumstance that I think is illuminating for this. An organization that was one of the fastest on the spot when it was requested as a support resource was the Home Guard, which is characterized by volunteer forces. It is an organization that I want to say is characterized by the culture that is necessary in these types of situations and which aims at wanting to solve the task. It is a culture where one does not divide over whose mandate and whose responsibility it is, but tries to solve the task as quickly as possible. It was also, among other things, thanks to the Home Guard's efforts that the evacuation, when it finally got underway at an entirely too late stage, proceeded relatively quickly, which was likely what led to the unpleasant situation on the E22 then being able to have a happy ending. I think this is illustrative of something that is needed in several administrative authorities. One needs to establish a clear culture where negligence in acute situations is not an option.

The implied premise of the question is the idea that the government should step in and operationally manage situations occurring over a very short period of time. The question being asked is where the Minister for Infrastructure was during exactly these 24 hours. If one holds that idea, a completely different administrative model is required, but I do not see any such proposal from the Social Democrats here today.

(Applause)

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that these rehearsed speaking points are to be repeated. But I have never ever claimed that which I believe the minister himself wrote on X, formerly Twitter: that he should have traveled down in some armored vehicle to Hörby, sat in some small shack out there and led the work on site. I have never said that. But I think that in the event of a crisis, one should know where the highest responsible person in the realm is located and what they are doing during these hours. The government governs the realm even during times of crisis, I still wish to assert.

It is funny to be reprimanded for Raljan's and the lack of responsibility by someone who, from the first second since this happened, has devoted all their time to finding a scapegoat who is far away from the government. It is quite interesting. I thank you for the little reprimand, or whatever I am supposed to say.

Many questions are left unanswered here. We do not really get to know where the Minister for Infrastructure was. We will find that out in another way. In any case, we do not get an answer to that today.

If I am to conclude on a slightly more positive note, I nevertheless appreciate that the Minister in his second answer says: It may be that there are structural problems. Then perhaps we must solve them. It was a good initiative to call the heads of the agencies and have a discussion with them. How shall we ensure that it does not happen again?

At the same time, one must still remember how it is. I believe it was Harry S. Truman who had a sign on his desk in the White House that said: The buck stops here. The government still has the responsibility. It cannot divest itself of the responsibility just because it feels like it.

I appreciate that the Minister in his second answer addressed these questions. We are prepared to look at structural solutions. But I want to repeat once again that I have never ever claimed that the Minister would be sitting down in Hörby. I understand that it is what one wants to project. But I have never said that.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! Nevertheless, it is an implicit premise that Adrian Magnusson and others express in the debate. The question is asked as to exactly where the Minister for Infrastructure was located during these 24 hours. It is to let it be assumed that the Minister for Infrastructure as such would have had an operational role.

The question has been asked: Where was the government? What responsibility was taken during these 24 hours while the situation was persisting? My objection is that one then has not understood how the Swedish administrative model works.

Yes, the buck stops here. It does so in the sense that the government is ultimately responsible for the development in Sweden over time, in the small and in the large. The buck stops here in the sense that if, in 2026, one thinks that Sweden has become a worse country after the four years we have put significant effort into cleaning up after the problems we inherited, if one thinks that the development has not turned in the right direction, one should naturally vote according to that conclusion.

The idea is that ministers should step in and be operational in rapidly unfolding crises. One can, of course, have that view. But then one must present a proposal based on a completely different administrative model than the one we have chosen in Sweden.

We are going to investigate whether there are structural problems. But my perception is that there are also cultural problems. It is a question of leadership or organization. We have a very good discussion. We will return when the evaluation is appointed and when it is completed.

(Applause)

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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