Response to interpellation 2023/24:484 on cooperation between authorities and the local community
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 government has a clear rural focus 1 and that Trafikverket follows rules where municipalities and the public are allowed to participate 1 2. KD emphasizes the importance of cost control as national plans are oversubscribed 3 and that resources must be used where they do the most good 2 3. KD believes that dialogue is important to weigh individual interests against public ones 3 4 and that they work to minimize disruptions 3. C argues that the authorities have failed if people perceive that they lack influence 5. C believes that the human must be prioritized over the authority 5.
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! Martina Johansson has asked me whether I, within my area of responsibility, and the government intend to act to ensure that the cooperation mandate that the authorities have is followed and, if so, when. Martina Johansson has also asked me what measures I intend to take if cooperation with the local community does not occur, and what general initiatives I intend to take so that decisions shall be based on a sufficient factual basis within, among other things, Trafikverket.
The development of the countryside is crucial for Sweden's success. Here, the government has a unified focus: All of Sweden shall function. The government has a clear rural focus and is working purposefully to improve the conditions for those who live, work, and operate in the countryside.
As part of that work, a review of the overall rural policy has been initiated within the Government Offices. The objective of the review is to submit a unified rural policy proposition as well as to increase awareness of the conditions in Sweden's rural areas.
Before an application for a permit, a grid concession, for a new power line, the grid companies conduct extensive consultations with both relevant authorities, landowners, and the public. Energimarknadsinspektionen has been tasked to cooperate with a number of authorities to make the permit process for electricity grids more efficient, and that may include having a better dialogue early on. The assignment is ongoing and is reported annually.
When Trafikverket works on and is to make decisions regarding road and railway projects, there are clear rules to adhere to in laws and regulations. These are extensive processes in several steps, and they contain moments where municipalities, county administrative boards, the public, and particularly affected parties are given the opportunity to participate in various consultations. This means that many different parties have been heard before the spade is put in the ground for an individual project.
When it comes to Trafikverket's project with a new railway bridge over the Södra stambanan at Vrena in Södermanland, this is a project known to both of us, which we, among other things, discussed in the chamber as recently as June 2, 2023. It is pleasing that a new bridge was completed in November 2023. It is a bridge that will secure the long-term accessibility in the community so that one can continue to safely drive across the railway and reach both jobs and homes as well as shops and school.
The new bridge's expected lifespan is 120 years, and it will for a long time to come improve the conditions for residents in the area and for the business community by allowing heavier loads than the older bridge.
Martina Johansson (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though I did not quite perceive that I received answers to my questions.
My questions were about how the minister plans to follow up on whether those who live and work in a rural area can have a real influence and that this works in a good way, as well as how the minister intends to follow up on the matter if it is the case that he perceives it is not working, that is, that people cannot have a real influence. I also had questions about how work is being done to ensure that there is a correct factual basis when decisions are made. If I missed the answers, please give them to me again!
What I have been wondering about and am unsure of is whether the Minister wants to see the problems that I repeatedly try to raise in these types of interpellation debates. There are, in fact, families who, during the year the bridge was replaced, had to travel an extra 500 miles to be able to get to work. It has cost money for the families, and it has cost the environment. Above all, it has cost a great deal of time for the people who lived on the wrong side of the bridge. There are also companies that have lost somewhere between 800,000 kronor and 1 million through reduced revenues, because customers have not been able to get there, and through increased costs for transport.
No one is questioning the bridge replacement itself; everyone is very happy that the replacement took place. Trafikverket also kept its schedule; it took eleven months. So that is not the problem. The problem is that no attempt was made to arrange a provisional crossing for car traffic during the time the bridge was being replaced.
On this section, four passenger trains run per day. We are therefore not talking about a main line where passenger traffic runs every quarter of an hour.
At the initial consultation meetings with the residents, it was said that it was not possible to have car traffic where the X2000 trains run. When the planning began, the employees involved were therefore not aware that it was about four freight trains per day.
What I am requesting is the Minister's answer as to why there is no interest in pushing the authorities to have a human perspective instead of the agency's perspective when working with cooperation and local presence. If the Christian Democrats are serious about the heartland, you must also look at the people who live and work on site in order to understand the problems.
When we last met in the chamber, in June, I invited the minister to Vrena so that he could see what is happening and consider how one can work so that Trafikverket can get a different or more flexible mandate. But unfortunately, we did not manage a visit; why I do not know. But now I repeat my offer to the minister. Even though the bridge is in place, the people remain, and they could inform the minister how one could have worked to achieve this in a better way. Everyone wanted the bridge replacement, after all.
How will the minister work to ensure that it is the people's perspective and the local perspective that prevail in the planning of infrastructure?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by thanking you for the commitment. Dialogue and consultation and being responsive to the local level is, of course, important, and according to its instructions, Trafikverket shall have well-functioning routines, working methods and forms of cooperation that safeguard and enable national, regional and local influence.
Trafikverket's work in developing road and railway plans and carrying out projects is regulated in both laws and ordinances, and furthermore, Trafikverket shall take into account and comply with other regulatory frameworks. These include, for example, the four-step principle and the agreement with Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner regarding streets, roads, design, etc. These are extensive processes that often involve making reasonable trade-offs based on a comprehensive decision-making basis concerning both issues of a technical nature and individual and public interests. The regulatory framework and the tools exist so that Trafikverket can make well-founded decisions based on the factual basis that is relevant to the individual project.
As a minister, I shall not comment on an individual case, but according to the information I have received, Trafikverket has had a great understanding that the bridge replacement affected the everyday lives of everyone who lives or has business in or around Vrena. During the time the old bridge was demolished and a new one was built, accessibility was temporarily impaired for natural reasons. In an early planning stage, it was determined that a temporary passage for cars and trucks was not suitable because it would mean that traffic would be directed into residential areas that are not intended for it. The result would be a dangerous traffic environment for the families in these residential areas.
A temporary car passage would also have cost up to 15 million kronor to build and operate, and this cost was assessed not to be socio-economically profitable in a project with a total cost of 40 million kronor. In Sweden, there is a large and increasing number of roads in need of maintenance, and it is therefore extra important that Trafikverket makes careful choices so that our common resources are used in the best way and where they do the most good.
Of course, dialogue and finding solutions during the construction period are important, and I welcome Martina Johansson's commitment. Trafikverket has informed me that, just as in all similar projects, they have carefully investigated the possibilities to maximize accessibility during the construction period. The project management had, from the end of 2020, several meetings with the municipality, the rescue services, Vrenabygdens Intresseförening, and Vrena Vägförening to capture views. In October 2022, Trafikverket invited all interested parties to an open house. Invitations were sent to 1,200 recipients based on the postal code areas located in and near Vrena, and about seventy arrived at the meeting.
Before the start of construction, Trafikverket had a dialogue with residents and businesses in the area so that they could talk together about how to achieve positive solutions during the construction period. To facilitate things for the residents in Vrena, Trafikverket arranged a temporary car park on the western side of the bridge and a slightly smaller parking lot on the eastern side, and there was a pedestrian crossing where one could also take a bicycle. The rescue service could pass over the railway with emergency vehicles without having to drive via the designated detour route, and Trafikverket also had a dialogue with the road association whose road was driven over during the construction period.
Often, there is nothing against the project itself; rather, it is long-awaited. But during the construction period, there are consequences that cause problems in everyday life. But now, Vrena has a new, safe bridge over the railway for a long time to come. Furthermore, it can handle heavier vehicles than the old one.
I say this as background, but there is certainly every reason to see how one can even better ensure good dialogue and consultation in this type of infrastructure project.
Martina Johansson (C)
Madam Speaker! Yes, our authorities have instructions, routines, requirements on a lot of different things, laws and regulations to adhere to in collaborative projects. But if the people who live in an area perceive that they have no influence whatsoever, then one must have failed somewhere. My local engagement, which the Minister thinks is good, I have for the people who live in the district. My example is not unique, but similar ones exist in many places in the country. Thus, the Minister must see that not everything works as I hope and believe the Minister wants it to work.
There must be routines for producing correct factual foundations, but at the open house, those living in the area told the employees that it was not X2000 trains that ran there. When this happens at a consultation, it is something that is not working.
There are also other authorities. In my interpellation, I wrote that I would also bring up the power line between Hedenlunda and Oxelösund, but I have not gone into that much. I have also received examples from other parts of the country where it is the same. The authorities draw a line, and then the residents are allowed to appeal. Instead, one should visit the site where something is to be done, ask what would have the least impact on the residents, and then proceed from that.
Madam Speaker! Let me return to Vrena. One can wonder how many millions it is worth for society to have functioning and satisfied citizens who do not question the conditions of democracy. Now we heard that it would have cost 15 million to create a temporary crossing. I took up an entrepreneur and a family, but how much has it cost all those who live in Vrena that neither the government nor Trafikverket prioritized a provisional crossing? I know which crossing Trafikverket meant, and yes, it went through residential areas. But there are older, decommissioned crossings, because there used to be many more roads. One could perhaps have chosen a crossing that was located a bit closer to the community and did not involve a four-mile detour to get to work.
Madam Speaker! As a minister, one must absolutely not make decisions in individual cases, and that is not what I am requesting either. What I am looking for is how, from the government's side, one structuredly poses questions and shines a light on what one wants to see happen. If one wants people to be able to participate and influence their local area, an incredibly important starting point for the Center Party, one must ask the question: What is the Transport Administration doing? Every time the minister meets the Director General, ask the question: How are you working to ensure that local cooperation improves?
When the banks are to develop new products to reduce fraud against the elderly, Finance Market Minister Niklas Wykman calls the banks together and asks what they intend to do about the matter. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson called the grocery stores together and asked how they were working to ensure that food prices would not skyrocket. Why can't the Infrastructure Minister call the Swedish Transport Administration together and say: Turn the perspective around! Start from the human being instead of the authority!
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Just as Martina Johansson is in, dialogue is important, of course, also between authorities and actors who are affected. This is a major reason why I have quite a few dialogue meetings and cooperation meetings, even when it comes to railway maintenance.
When it comes to road and railway maintenance, I had a meeting as recently as a week ago about how digitalization can be used and how railway maintenance can be made more efficient. We have had several meetings regarding this so that the focus does not only fall on the money discussion, but on how the money is actually used so that there is as little impact as possible.
It is of course important that in all projects, work is done to minimize the disruptions that occur during the construction period. The Government Offices have an ongoing dialogue with Trafikverket where this type of question is discussed and, when necessary, followed up. It is thus part of the authority dialogue that we of course have with Trafikverket on an ongoing basis.
As a Minister, I cannot, of course, comment on an individual case, but I assume that Trafikverket is working systematically according to the applicable rules to produce a basis that is as reliable and complete as possible in order to be able to make necessary decisions. This includes consulting with the public and the local organizations that can be assumed to be affected.
Madam Speaker! In a situation where we had unlimited money in the infrastructure budget, I would have found it very easy to agree with the member that one simply has to add 15 million kronor and perhaps the problem is solved. However, just as the member is pointing out, we do not just have this case but many examples where large, long-awaited and important infrastructure projects have an impact on the local community during the construction period. It can be a long-awaited project, but it has an impact.
If we were to simply add the millions required to create the situation that in this case might have solved some of the problems in every such project, we would not be able to afford other important things. Then we might have had to postpone a bridge replacement in other places.
I want to problematize the reasoning that it is not that much money. What it is worth, we can discuss when we discuss the framework for the infrastructure budget, where the government will return with a proposal to the Riksdag's table in the autumn.
Already in the orientation document that has been presented, it is shown that the current national plan is heavily over-subscribed, which is a remnant from the previous government. It is something that we now have to handle. Therefore, we place a lot of focus on cost control and on the fact that every project must be kept within the framework. Even relatively small amounts of money become large because there are many different projects that need funding.
I do not, in any way, wish to object to the reasoning that local engagement is important, but I want to problematize the view that 15 million kronor would not be that much. It is quite a lot of money, and it is important that they are prioritized in a unified process where one also sees that this can have consequences for other important infrastructure projects.
This was, however, as I was mentioning, not the main reason, but it was also the case that the traffic was to have been diverted via a residential area, according to the information I have. As I have said, I do not go into details in an individual case, but it is based on the account I have received from Trafikverket that I answer the member's question and engagement.
With that said, I am the biggest advocate for more dialogue and for more focus on making the local level visible - that individual interests are weighed against public interests to ensure as little impact as possible. This is an important discussion because we have many large and important projects ahead of us as well.
Martina Johansson (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister, but I feel that the Minister is avoiding answering.
Yes, dialogue between authorities is important, but it is not perceived as functioning. People I meet, and other people I meet in other contexts, experience that one is not interested. It may sound harsh, but it is perceived as having the perspective "now we have decided that we are going to do it this way - you can appeal if you want and poke a little at the outer edge."
It is clear that 15 million in each project is a lot of money, we can completely agree on that. But I am also convinced that by taking a different approach into these projects, money will be saved at the other end. The number of appeals will be reduced because people who live there and are affected by a project have been involved earlier in the process.
If you turn the perspective around, you will reduce costs, time spent, and the requirement for and need for good communication and skilled communicators to convince that this is the best. In this case, it cost 15 million because it was perceived that one did not start from scratch - money that perhaps could have been used in another area.
I have not asked the minister to comment on an individual matter or to make a decision regarding which bridge should be replaced and which crossing should exist. What I am requesting is the structure and the interest in highlighting the issue every time during the authority dialogue. Because it is not perceived to be the case today for those who meet with the minister's staff.
I return to the question: Will the Minister try to work a bit more with the local influence so that it truly becomes the people's perspective when one talks about the local influence? I sound repetitive - I know that - but the question is important. Step one would actually be to take my outstretched hand and come along to Vrena and meet those who have tips and ideas on how one could do it.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have answered the questions – structure and interest are being requested. When it comes to structure, there are laws, ordinances, and instructions. There is, therefore, a structure, and it is of course important that the authorities follow it. When it comes to interest, I have mentioned that this is an issue that is raised in the dialogue that the Government Offices and I have with the responsible authority.
Approach and attitude are, of course, very important. In a previous debate in a similar matter with the same member, Madam Speaker, I have pointed out that I, as a Member of Parliament in my own constituency, saw that an early dialogue where questions could be clarified was actually the way forward to gain acceptance for a project that many saw and wanted, but where there were some views on the implementation itself. One could at least accommodate certain parts simply by having a good dialogue, and that is why a good dialogue is so important. I have explained this, and I will, as Minister, of course, continue to follow this.
I believe the question regarding the visit to Vrena in the previous debate, Madam Speaker, was about which day in August last year I wanted to come. It was obviously difficult to arrange since we are standing here today, but let us see if we can look at it again. My calendar does not allow me to promise anything on the spot, but on the other hand, I appreciate that the member here in the chamber brings along the image and description that exists in the local community so that we can have a good discussion about it here. Then we can return to how authorities and the state, the public sector, can have as good and close a dialogue as possible with the local and regional level. That is, of course, very important.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.