Response to interpellation 2023/24:336 on the impact of war and crisis preparedness on private households
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that resilience begins at the individual level and that home preparedness is a duty for everyone between 16 and 70 years 1. M argues that individuals should plan based on their own needs to improve the conditions for those who need help 1. M rejects that the government should analyze costs for home preparedness and argues that it is an act of solidarity 2. M claims that the government is making a historic investment in restoring shelters and activating civil service 3. 4 S argues that households with narrow margins risk becoming the most vulnerable 4. 5 S emphasizes that it is a collective responsibility to ensure preparedness for the most vulnerable citizens 5. 6 S considers it a proof of poverty that Sweden does not offer more cohesion 6. 7 S requests an analysis of private individuals' conditions 7.
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 Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! Per-Arne Håkansson has asked me if I see a problem in that the conditions may differ between respective households' possibilities to prepare for war and crisis preparedness, and if, based on the new security situation that has been described, I intend to take the initiative for an analysis based on the costs that it may entail for private households to live up to the recommendations in the civil preparedness.
Resilience in civil defense begins at the individual level. Having home preparedness means being able to manage without society's help for at least one week. The more people who can manage this, the better conditions responsible social actors have to focus on helping those who have the hardest time managing on their own during that time. Those who usually need support in everyday life have the right to receive that help even in a crisis. The security situation makes it even more important that more people ensure their home preparedness.
MSB issues general advice and tips for home preparedness, which is requested and appreciated by many. Home preparedness, however, can look different. The most important thing is that individuals and households think ahead and make a plan based on their own needs and circumstances. How do we handle a situation where we do not have access to electricity, water, or mobile networks for an extended period? If individuals or households have a limited budget, they should focus on the absolute most important things. They should ensure access to life-saving medicine and first-aid equipment, a flashlight or headlamp and batteries, as well as bottles and containers with clean water and food that does not need to be cooked to the extent that is possible. If it is difficult to keep food items in stock, the items can be rotated over time. A radio is central, for example, to be able to receive information on where support can be obtained. If individuals or households cannot afford to buy a radio that works in such a situation, a recommendation is to talk to someone nearby who has one. Having good contact with one's neighbors and having a social network is particularly important in a crisis situation.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin!
The reason I submitted the interpellation is the reaction and the questions I have received from people I have met in various contexts in the constituency and similar ones following the message that both the Minister for Civil Defence and the Supreme Commander delivered in connection with the defense conference in Sälen.
It was emphasized then that the preparedness for war needs to exist and be anchored at the individual level. It is precisely from the perspective of the individual citizen and private households that I posed the questions in the interpellation. I am sure that many want to contribute and are interested and engaged in how one can prepare, not least from the household economic perspective.
I think there is an obvious risk that it is those with the tightest margins, or none at all, who will be most exposed if war comes. We are now experiencing increased unemployment figures, rising prices and rents. Many households, judging by everything, are having difficulty making ends meet. I think it could be good to have analyzed the situation also from this perspective of individual's everyday lives.
What is available based on the message delivered in Sälen is the folder produced in May 2018 by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency called Om krisen eller kriget kommer. In the folder, there are recommendations and tips for home preparedness, food supplies, communication, and the like.
In order to get a picture of the situation, I have asked the Riksdag's investigation service for a calculation based on the recommendations and tips provided in the brochure. One has also been prepared. I want to give a picture of the information provided there. It is based on data from Statistics Sweden and the Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOI. I assume that the minister may be familiar with a good deal of them.
It appears that a majority of the respondents stated that they have access to warm clothes, flashlights, bottles and buckets or canisters for water. More than half make the assessment that the people in the household would stay warm well indoors. The survey also shows that there is support for the fact that each person, just as the minister emphasizes, has a personal responsibility. It is around 88 percent who think so. At the same time, over half of the respondents say that they nevertheless expect help faster than according to the current appeal to be able to manage on their own for a period of one week.
It also appears that a general cost for home preparedness, according to the investigation service, is not possible to estimate in detail. Crisis boxes available for sale on the market can cost anything from 1,000 kronor to up to or just over 10,000 kronor.
Based on these calculations, which are quite vague, I would like to ask the Minister for Civil Defence if he does not see a reason to take an initiative to obtain a more in-depth analysis of what the situation implies for private households' possibilities when it comes to arranging home preparedness.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! The midwinter night's cold is harsh, the stars sparkle and glimmer. It is certainly felt that these are very bitter times, and for many more bitter than for others.
The economic crisis is hitting large parts of our society incredibly hard. Those who were already struggling now find it even harder. In addition to managing a fragile private economy, many adults must now also manage both their own and their children's anxiety that there might be war. Schools and preschools practice evacuation and entry, and staff meet children and young people and are trained to face more anxiety and fear. Every individual household is urged in the strongest terms to review its own crisis preparedness. Those of us who can afford it can stockpile crank radios, fuel, and batteries. Those who cannot afford it must rely on their neighbor. That is how I interpret the Minister's response to Per-Arne Håkansson's concerned question.
Madam Speaker! I am, as I said last Tuesday when I participated in a healthcare debate about the healthcare crisis and demands on the regions, fully in favor of common preparedness. I am fully in favor of a stronger civil defense. But I cannot understand how the government, and not least Bohlin himself, can take such a tone regarding the importance of common preparedness when one does not take greater responsibility oneself.
I come from Gotland. With 61,000 inhabitants, we are to take responsibility for our situation in the event of crisis and war. We are to build civil defense capacity on a larger scale, and at the same time, we are running a deficit of 400 million kronor and thus lack a real possibility to build the requested overcapacity.
The listener might wonder: Why do I mention this when we are going to discuss households' crisis preparedness? Well, Madam Speaker, I do so because I fear that the government operates according to the same logic in both cases: the regions must take responsibility for building the civil defense capacity as best they can, and each one of us must build home preparedness as best we can. Those of us who can afford it can hunt for deals on preparedness sites and stockpile canned goods at campaign prices. But as the author Susanna Alakoski writes: The rich can shop on sale, but the poor when they can afford it. Unfortunately, this becomes applicable for both municipalities and regions, but also for private individuals.
This is far from "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In the defense of Sweden, it would be precisely that principle that would be most applicable to work by. We are, after all, not stronger or more resilient than our most fragile citizen, and I believe we have a collective responsibility for his or her readiness. I wonder, of course: What does Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin actually think about this?
Marcus Wennerström (S)
Madam Speaker! I think it was worth requesting the floor regarding a small stanza in the response to the interpellation which is incredibly important. I want to take this opportunity to highlight this, because I believe it is also important in the preparedness and the planning that we as a country face.
It is about the formulation that those who normally require support need to be able to receive it also in a crisis. That is entirely correct, and the municipalities have a very large responsibility to provide this. But what is sometimes missing, and what I think the interpellation from Per-Arne puts its finger on, are the people who normally do not need support. They are those who today are precisely on the border of being assessed for assistance. We live in a country where we have a population that is only getting older and older, and where the level on the border for receiving support from society becomes higher and higher if we do not supplement with funds and if we do not get a stronger welfare state.
I would, as I said, just like to take the opportunity to also insert that group. How does the government see the municipalities being able to meet the needs of an aging population with ever-increasing needs for support, in parallel with our need to develop a stronger civil defense and a stronger crisis preparedness? It is one thing to be able to somewhat take care of one's own situation in everyday life, but it is a completely different thing when the power goes out, when the water is gone, and when the heat disappears.
As the Minister clearly points out in his answer, we can absolutely build a certain preparedness by having contact with those who are close. But when the crisis hits, it is far from the case that all of Sweden has anyone close, either geographically or in terms of social interaction.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! I do not perceive that many concrete questions in the contributions we have just heard, but I will nevertheless try to answer what I perceive to be what the interpellor is seeking. It is the question of how one should approach the fact that not everyone can afford to maintain the same level of home preparedness.
The short answer is what I always usually say: Everyone who can should take responsibility for their own home preparedness, because it improves the conditions for all of us to collectively take care of those who cannot. The starting point should be that the person who in normal circumstances can take care of themselves is expected to do so even during a crisis or, ultimately, in an armed attack. It is a duty imposed on every Swede between 16 and 70 years old. We have a total defense obligation in this country, meaning that one is expected to stand up for Sweden.
In order to be able to stand up for Sweden, one must take a fundamental responsibility for one's home defense. Not everyone can do it at the same level. Everyone has different circumstances. This is something we naturally need to take into account. But I think the discussion is constantly being steered in the wrong direction, namely away from personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is very great in this context. Personal responsibility is even so great that at the bottom of this lies a duty to help. We must never forget that.
The second question was: Do I intend to take an initiative to have the Government Offices analyze the costs of home preparedness? The short answer is no. I do not think we should use the government's precious resources for that when it can easily be done with a calculator. Go to krisinformation.se. If you want an idea of what this costs, you can add up what is listed there. And this is not a mandatory calculation. I usually say that home preparedness is not a gadget sport. It is very much about attitude, mental approach, and so on.
Just as the interpellor mentions, the expectations of parts of the population may not be calibrated to the security policy situation. It is naturally also one of the reasons why we are now trying to speak with clarity: One cannot as a private individual, if one in normal cases manages well without support and help from society, expect to receive help from society when the crisis is at our doorstep or if war, God forbid, were at our doorstep. It is then that one must help society oneself; that is the starting point for this.
We therefore need to recalibrate the image of society, of the state, and of the public in the event of, ultimately, an armed attack. It is naturally an important point that we now express ourselves in the way we do.
We come from a long period of relaxation after the end of the Cold War. That time is over. The post-war period is over. We are entering a new paradigm, and it requires a mental shift among the Swedish people. It requires that one understands that we are now living in a time of seriousness.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister for Civil Defence Carl-Oskar Bohlin for the answer.
I want to emphasize once again that the brochure with recommendations that was produced in 2018, over five years ago, was a very good initiative. I am sure that it has been well received by many citizens. It may, however, be good to keep in mind that a lot has happened during these years. The brochure was relevant when it was sent out, but those who are now of legal age and expected to manage their obligations in everyday life were perhaps 12-13 years old when the brochure was printed and sent out. Awareness and knowledge of the situation is of great importance, as is that this exists on as broad a basis as possible among the population.
With perspective, one can observe that times change. For my part, I did my military service in 1982-1983, during the time of general conscription, at P 6 in Kristianstad. At that time, it was part of everyday life to prepare for war, and there was no doubt that the threat was also considered to come from the east. There was perhaps also a different level of mobilization among the population when everyone did their conscription.
Just over ten years ago, the general conscription was abolished by the then Moderate-led government. Now, it is once again a matter of creating a good anchoring in society for a good sense of community and a sense of personal responsibility in everyday life, as the Minister for Civil Defence also emphasizes.
It has been said here that a society is not stronger than its weakest link. Therefore, I think that from the perspective of private households, information is an important prerequisite for planning. There may be reason to consider whether an update of MSB's brochure from 2018, based on the current situation, could be relevant. Or does the Minister for Civil Defence assess that the awareness, knowledge, and even the economic preparedness of private households is sufficient?
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! We live in a challenging time – we understand that. I want to emphasize it in case the Minister doubts our insight that we find ourselves in a serious situation. It is also because we understand this that we wonder.
The responsibility falls heavily on us who act on behalf of others, on the voters' mandate. Sweden and the Swedish people are being tested severely, but in the event of crisis or war, we can be calm knowing that the tests would be far more numerous and far worse. For that, we must prepare and arm ourselves - preferably collectively. I think it is an immense proof of poverty that a country like Sweden, with our proud history of welfare, prosperity, and peace, cannot offer more cohesion than what the government is now emphasizing.
There is a lot of talk and little workshop - unfortunately, I must add. The defense and civil defense of Sweden would be greatly served if the government and not least the Minister himself took the preparedness buildup and the shared responsibility for this more seriously. To point to the regions' responsibility for the civil healthcare capacity and, with the same logic, point to the individual's responsibility to listen to their or someone else's crank radio does not hold. It may be easy, but it is not right. It is to do Sweden and the Swedes and our common preparedness and resilience a considerable disservice. It is distressing. I also believe, Madam Speaker, that it is dangerous.
Marcus Wennerström (S)
Madam Speaker! I am glad that I jumped into the debate, because I was, to say the least, a little upset by the Minister's answer.
What truly concerns me is the image that the government gives, both through the Prime Minister and through the Minister, of governing over a people who are completely oblivious, who do not understand that we live in a time of responsibility and who do not have enough self-preservation to feel responsibility for their own need to provide for themselves when the crisis arrives.
I honestly wonder where that image comes from. Is it the lessons from the pandemic? What I saw in the pandemic was a people who stood up and who opened doors. Yes, we bought a bit too much toilet paper in the beginning, but I think that can be written off a few years later.
Is it the lessons from when Ukrainian refugees streamed in after Russia's war of aggression became full-scale? No, then the people at home in my hometown of Enköping were at least ready to step up. I, in my role as a municipal official, was scolded because we were too bad at receiving clothes, toys, help, and support for those who arrived.
Madam Speaker! What we are talking about are individuals who every week seek out, for example, Matbryggan, where they can receive a food bag three times a week to get through the day. These are people who have only a few kronor left after the rent is paid. They are the ones we wonder about, they are the ones we worry about, and they are the ones I perceive Per-Arne has written a question about, namely whether an analysis can be prepared to see what needs they have.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! I note that Marcus Wennerström has now made two contributions in this interpellation debate without posing any question to the undersigned.
I therefore made a reference to the interpellant's objection that awareness of what responsibility is placed on each individual needs to increase. I share that view. I also agree with Marcus Wennerström that we are a people who do our utmost when required. This has been shown in a number of crises throughout history, and it is, of course, a promising insight.
It is also a promising insight to note that when the security situation in Sweden deteriorates, more people seek out voluntary organizations. It is naturally a testament to that the Swedish people are willing to step up for their country.
The point of home defense is that we should have the best possible conditions when the unforeseen hits us. Again: We cannot place the same demands on all individuals, because all individuals have different circumstances. It is therefore all the more important that we emphasize personal responsibility for those who have the ability. It is only when they take this responsibility that we can take care of those who do not have the ability. It should fundamentally be something that appeals to a social democrat. But despite that, this debate and discussion is being conducted as if one wants to misunderstand.
I also note the undertones in the discussion from Hanna Westerén regarding that the government would lack ambition in this area. That is not true. The last time I looked, I could see that we are allocating exactly the same appropriation for expenditure area 6 in the budget for 2024 as the Social Democrats when it comes to these issues.
I don't quite think the tone is justified. Instead, we should be united in that civil defense needs to become better in Sweden. It needs to become better across the board. It naturally begins with every single individual, just as we are discussing in this debate, and the necessity of every individual taking responsibility for their own home preparedness.
But there is, of course, a long list of things that the state must ensure. If I may only mention a few, this government is undertaking a historic investment to speed up the restoration of shelters in Sweden. This has not happened since the Persson government decided to stop building shelters in Sweden in 2002. It is a change of direction that is moving faster than the path that was laid out in the previous defense decision and is an increase in ambition from this government - just as we are now activating civil service in the municipal rescue services sector, just as we are allocating more funds this year than the path that was established in the defense decision for rescue services during high alert to strengthen the rescue services' ability to protect the civilian population, just as we are placing fast-track missions with MSB to get started with the supply readiness work, also a capability that was completely discontinued in Sweden in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
There is a great reclamation to be made. Part of it naturally begins with individual home preparedness.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer and for the discussion that has taken place here.
As I see it, cohesion and unity are of great importance. Each person's contribution is, as also mentioned in the debate, of great weight. I believe it is important that we also weigh in the socio-economic conditions when it comes to preparedness and security thinking. It is a problem to take seriously and to try to address. The same applies to issues of good integration, which indeed creates the community in society. It is a message that I nevertheless hope the Minister for Civil Defence sees as important to include in the work with crisis and war preparedness.
I have unfortunately not noted from the answers that there is any interest in conducting a more in-depth analysis to gain increased knowledge and understanding regarding these prerequisites. Please see the report that the Riksdag's investigation service has prepared as part of this work moving forward!
I believe it is of great importance that we include the socioeconomic conditions and the importance of all people in Sweden being able to contribute based on the conditions one has. But then we need to have a sense of community and an awareness regarding this, and here I believe that an analysis based on the situation regarding home preparedness and private individuals' conditions for this would be a good tool.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! I note that what is requested in the interpellation is an analysis of what costs are incurred for a household that wants to take responsibility for its home preparedness.
The point I have tried to make in previous posts is that it is a relatively narrow matter to calculate. One can go to Krisberedskap.se and see the catalog of recommended items that can be good to have at home to take responsibility for one's home preparedness. It is a simple matter to calculate approximately what this costs. The list is not a requirement; it is a recommendation, and each individual can, of course, try to live up to that recommendation according to their own circumstances.
My clear message is that everyone who can should take that responsibility. Note: Everyone who can. Then the conditions will be better to care for all those who cannot. Taking responsibility for one's own home preparedness is not a large and extensive exercise, but it is a fundamental act of solidarity with one's country.
With these words, I conclude this interpellation debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.