Response to interpellation 2023/24:670 on traffic in southern Sweden and the southern parts of Örebro County during snowstorms
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns traffic problems during snowstorms and the management of the traffic stoppage on E22. KD notes that the failure was due to a lack of coordination between authorities 1 and emphasizes that the government acted based on the principle of responsibility 2. KD argues that the authorities are responsible for communication 3 and that they are now expected to strengthen their routines 4. KD argues that the government is now investigating an extended studded tire season and increased fines 1 2 3. M argues that the minister failed in leadership by being in Brussels during the crisis 5 and demands an earlier construction start on national road 50 6. M argues that S wants ministerial rule 7. S argues that the minister is dodging their responsibility and that there is a lack of commitment to national road 50 8.
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! I have been asked how I acted regarding the traffic problems last winter compared to the new problems in traffic now in April, and what new initiatives I will take to avoid repeated problems in traffic when it snows. Matilda Ernkrans has also asked me how I view the possibility of prioritizing moving forward the start of construction for the reconstruction of road 50 between Nykyrka and Brattebro backe.
Let me first state that it cannot be described as anything other than a failure that a large number of vehicles with goods and passengers were stranded for over a day on a Swedish European road as a result of a severe but still limited snowstorm. It is, however, with relief that I note that none of those affected, as far as I know, suffered serious injury.
I have previously stated here in the chamber that the relevant public actors need to rectify the deficiencies demonstrated in the handling of the incident to ensure that a similar situation does not arise again. This becomes even clearer for me now that I have received the reports of the investigations into the incident that Länsstyrelsen in Skåne län and Trafikverket have had conducted. Both investigations show that, among other things, the coordination between the involved actors was deficient. The reports also point out that at the time of the incident, there was a lack of knowledge regarding which responsibilities and which tasks were to fall on which actor.
The Government also awaits the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency to report on the assignment that the Government gave the agency in February 2024 after the summer. The assignment includes evaluating the handling of the incident on road E22 from a crisis preparedness perspective. The assignment also includes highlighting any ambiguities and deviations regarding responsibilities and roles that can be identified from the incident and also analyzing how the so-called principle of responsibility has functioned.
During the snowstorm in April, which Matilda Ernkrans refers to in her questions, the government actively followed the authorities' work, and I kept myself informed about the situation. As I have previously stated in various contexts, the government does not rule out that measures may need to be taken if such a need arises. Already in November last year, the government tasked Transportstyrelsen with investigating the permitted time for studded tires in the spring (LI2023/03476). In addition to the government's measures, I assume that the relevant authorities and other actors are acting based on the conclusions drawn in the county administrative board's and Trafikverket's evaluations.
Riksväg 50 is a heavily traffic-loaded and important transport route for both heavy traffic and commuting traffic. Trafikverket is therefore planning for a reconstruction into a meeting-free road, which increases both traffic safety and accessibility on the road. Trafikverket's established road plan for the reconstruction of the section Nykyrka-Brattebro backe was appealed in 2022 and was subsequently submitted to the government for review. The government rejected the appeal in June 2023, and Trafikverket thus has the conditions needed to be able to proceed with the project. Trafikverket is now working on preparing a request for proposal and shall thereafter carry out a procurement. Planned construction start is, according to Trafikverket's assessment, 2026.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Andreas Carlson for the answer, even though it leaves some other matters to be considered.
Leadership is tested in a crisis. As a minister, you choose how you will act and what kind of leadership you want to take. I mean that it is reasonable to expect that a minister cares about Sweden and chooses Sweden in a crisis. But that assessment was obviously not made by the minister responsible for transport this winter during the chaos on the E22, as we still do not quite know where the minister was located, or during the traffic chaos that hit Sweden during the first days of April, when the minister instead chose Brussels.
People here at home were stuck in their cars. A sick one-year-old needed to be lifted out to a quad bike because the ambulance could not get through. Drivers had to spend the entire night in their cars, and responsible authorities reported that they worked as much as they possibly could but that it was not enough. Then the Minister for Infrastructure chose to travel to Brussels for an informal EU meeting where not even any decisions were to be made.
I like EU cooperation. Together with Hans Wallmark, I lead the work in the Riksdag's EU Committee, so I really like EU cooperation. But this was more than tone-deaf from the minister responsible for transport. It would have been perfectly fine if a state secretary had represented Sweden at the informal EU meeting and if the minister responsible for transport had shown their leadership and commitment here at home in Sweden. The minister probably realized their mistake. Too late, the minister flew back home to hold a press conference.
No, this is not a leadership that impresses. It is many people's responsibility and leadership that is tested in a crisis. It also includes a minister's responsibility. We can assume that the minister has seen the orange weather warnings issued regarding the snowstorm, which, according to a rescue chief, became the worst in 30 years. It will snow in Sweden again. Crisis management during snowstorms and the subsequent traffic chaos will be needed, not least from the responsible minister and the government, and that one learns from crises and does not make the same mistakes twice during the same type of crisis. One might think that should be obvious. But it is still not the answer that the minister gives, which is more than strange.
Therefore, I shall repeat my question: What did the minister learn from how he acted regarding the problems in traffic last winter compared to how he acted regarding the new problems with traffic in the wake of the snow chaos now in April? Now, it is being reported that a new cold front is arriving. Should the Swedes expect an absent minister and a new traffic chaos now as well?
Lars Beckman (M)
Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, this is an important interpellation. Sweden has four seasons: summer, autumn, winter, and spring. It is obvious that one should be able to get around in a country like Sweden, regardless of whether one is driving a car, operating heavy traffic, flying, or traveling by train.
I do not know how many interpellation debates I have had with previous Social Democratic infrastructure ministers about what these governments could do to improve accessibility.
We all know how it was when Miljöpartiet ruled Sweden. Road maintenance was not prioritized, they cut the money for road maintenance and the roads were almost impassable at certain times of the year.
But this interpellation does not actually take its starting point in what Trafikverket and our authorities shall do, but it seems rather to take its starting point in what the Minister for Infrastructure should have done during the ongoing crisis. With all respect for Andreas Carlsson's knowledge, I do not believe he is a snowplow driver. I do not believe he is a helicopter pilot. And I do not believe he can drive a tracked vehicle.
Madam Speaker! We do not have the constitutional order in Sweden such that it is the minister who actively intervenes and exercises ministerial rule.
Those who listen to or watch this debate, I think, should go and read what was written on Expressen's editorial page about the Social Democrats' maneuvers during the operational situation when this happened.
It is more than remarkable that Matilda Ernkrans, who has been a minister in a Swedish government, does not know that we do not have ministerial rule in Sweden. That might be so if any other Social Democratic Member of Parliament had said this, but Matilda Ernkrans herself knows very well that it is the authorities that are to govern the work and not the minister.
It would naturally have been remarkable if Andreas Carlson had sat in a helicopter and come to Örebro – I don't know if one can land in a snowstorm – and shoveled snow. But if I understand correctly, Matilda Ernkrans is from this constituency. Was it the case that Matilda Ernkrans, as a Member of Parliament, took out the snow shovel and headed out onto the E4 to try to clear the roads? It is obvious that she, just as the minister, could have done so. It would have been interesting, Matilda Ernkrans. Did the MP take the shovel or the snow shovel and head out onto the E4?
I do not know how many interpellation debates I have had over eight years regarding studded tires and the importance of extending the studded tire season. Just as the member now points out, we have a snow warning this week. But thanks to the Miljöpartiet's policy, one has still not come to a conclusion and extended the time for studded tires. But this government has already said that one shall extend the time for studded tires. It is clear that it has an enormous significance for traffic safety.
The Moderates in the Committee on Civil Affairs are going to Boden on Sunday. We will be there Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. I asked my parents-in-law in Boden how much snow there is in Boden and what clothes I should wear. My mother-in-law said that there is 70 centimeters of snow.
But Matilda Ernkrans, who sat in the previous government, has not extended the time for studded tires. But this government has already delivered in that regard.
Based on Matilda Ernkrans' rhetoric in her answer, I would like to know if the Social Democrats want to change the constitutional order. Does Matilda Ernkrans want ministerial government? Or what exactly does she mean that the minister should have done during the ongoing snowstorm? But I think the minister, in her answer, has very extensively presented what a government can, should, and must do.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have already answered the member's questions. I have also accounted for the government's handling of the traffic stop on the E22 in the Committee on the Constitution on Monday. I have previously answered the interpellation Kris's handling within the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure by the member's party colleague Gunilla Svantorp here in the chamber.
As I said, Madam Speaker, the government does not rule out that measures may need to be taken and decisions made by the government if such a need emerges in the evaluations being conducted of the incident.
In this context, I would like to refer to what I stated at the press briefing after the snowstorm in early April regarding the fact that we are now working on a new assignment for Trafikverket concerning how winter road maintenance should be improved, and that the government has already previously tasked Transportstyrelsen with investigating the permitted time for studded tires with the starting point that the time should be extended by two weeks, so that one can avoid this type of perhaps hasty tire changes and so that one simply gets more time to switch from winter tires to summer tires. I also indicated then that we intend to review which fine amounts should apply if one drives a car with poor tires. I intend to return to these issues.
Since then, it is the case that the government's tasks in crisis management primarily concern strategic issues. In an event of crisis, the government is tasked, among other things, with ensuring effective crisis management at an overall national level. To ensure effective crisis management, the government has delegated large parts of the operational activities during a crisis to the authorities. In Sweden, the principle of responsibility applies. And it is, of course, based on this principle that I and the government have acted. There are no other principles that we can apply in that situation. It would therefore be interesting to hear if the member wishes to elaborate on an answer to the question that Member Beckman asked.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Madam Speaker! Again: In a crisis, leadership is tested, and as a minister, one chooses how to act and what kind of leadership one wants to exercise. As I said, I myself was a minister during the pandemic. I know, therefore, that as a minister, one can decide what type of leadership one wants to exercise. It should not be confused at all with any form of ministerial rule. I actually believe that the State Councilor has realized the latter, since the State Councilor himself chose to return home to Sweden and hold a press conference during the ongoing crisis.
It is, as said, many who have responsibility in a crisis. This also applies to responsible ministers. If Minister Andreas Carlson did not at once feel this responsibility to show his leadership during this crisis, one can ask who the Minister means should show responsibility from the government during a crisis. The ultimate coordination for crisis management lies with the Prime Minister. One can then wonder if Minister Carlson is sort of being thrown under the bus by the Prime Minister or if this is just another sign of the weak leadership that has become Prime Minister Kristersson's trademark.
Well, as a resident of Örebro county and living in the southern part of Örebro county, I want to move on to what hit very close in April. Once again, national road 50 was in the spotlight. The snowstorm and traffic chaos in April also hit Örebro county, and the southern parts outside Askersund on national road 50 were hit worst. At Hammarsundet and Brattebro backe, motorists were therefore stuck in their cars all night, for up to 16 hours. They are now requesting better preventive work but also a reconstructed national road 50.
It is not only at this moment that people have been affected by traffic problems on this stretch. With the slightest bit of snow, there are problems. It is a very accident-prone stretch. That is also the reason why the reconstruction of this road has been included for a number of years in an attempt to be completed. As the Minister himself mentioned, the decision was appealed during 2022 but was upheld after the appeal in the summer of 2023, and that is well and good. But I mean that reasonable leadership from the now responsible Minister, after the strain that people have been subjected to, should well be to take the initiative for or give notice of an earlier construction start for the reconstruction of national road 50 between Nykyrka and Brattebro. The Minister does not answer my question. The Minister refers to the fact that reasonable work is being carried out by Trafikverket, but he knows well enough that he can also give Trafikverket the conditions to speed up the process.
Many motorists have been tested for far too many years on national road 50 between Nykyrka and Brattebro, which, as mentioned, is a very accident-prone stretch and where problems arise with the slightest bit of snow and even more when there is snow chaos. Can we expect the Minister, with his responsibility and his portfolio, to act for an earlier construction start for the reconstruction of national road 50 between Nykyrka and Brattebro backe?
Lars Beckman (M)
Madam Speaker! One would have liked to be a little fly on the wall when Matilda Ernkrans was Minister for Energy. Think of how she must have lectured the then Minister for Infrastructure, Tomas Eneroth.
For eight years, we Moderates tried to get the Social Democrats and the Green Party, who governed Sweden, to, for example, change the time for studded tires. For eight years, we tried to get the Social Democrats to review the possibility of, for example, increasing the fines for those who drive with poor tires. For eight years, we tried to get the Green Party government to increase the resources for road maintenance. For eight years, we tried to get the Green Party government to increase the money for roads in general. Nothing came. This was naturally because the Green Party did not want to prioritize these issues.
I also note that Member Matilda Ernkrans did not answer what she did in the acute situation. Did she take the snowplow and help motorists, did she take a snow shovel and shovel the roads, or what did she do personally? She had exactly the same opportunity as the Minister to act in an acute crisis, because that is how the order is.
From Matilda Ernkrans' reasoning, it seems that the Social Democrats want a new constitution, i.e., ministerial rule, in Sweden. It is okay to think that. But let us then have an open and honest debate about why that would be better than the professional management at agencies acting in acute crises, just as it should be.
Since it is, of course, the government's task, just as the Minister has said here, to review what can be learned from an acute crisis and which instructions to our agencies need to be improved, and that is exactly what both the Minister and the government have done.
The question remains, therefore, Matilda Ernkrans, whether the Member of Parliament wants to change the order we have today, so that the ministers shall act differently. And what did Matilda Ernkrans herself do in the acute situation?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the debate.
Regarding the communication in connection with the handling of the two incidents, I would like to begin by saying that during the ongoing handling of the type of crises we saw due to the incidents on road E22 in January and the one in April regarding road E4 and road E20, it is the operationally involved authorities that have the responsibility based on what is judged to be important for the handling. They shall seek and disseminate information about, for example, when the problems can be expected to be resolved and how one as an affected person should behave.
Regarding the handling of the incident on the E22, as I mentioned earlier, the authorities responsible had difficulty coordinating with each other. This led to a delay before a consolidated situational picture emerged. Furthermore, it was only after the situation had stabilized and it began to be possible to gain an overview of the events, i.e., on January 5, that I chose to go to the media and comment on the handling of the incident. My goal with that communication was to meet the information need that I judged many people had at the time, including with regard to how the government actually viewed the handling.
It is of course important that such communication is based on a correct foundation and a picture of who held the responsibility. It was a poor situational picture. As we have subsequently noted, it was of course important to communicate that this could not be seen as anything other than a failure and that it was serious.
I think it was reasonable that such information was given quickly by a representative of the government, not least so that everyone affected by the situation would receive a receipt that this was something that would be followed up and was not seen as acceptable.
Regarding the snowstorm that occurred in early April, which affected traffic on road E4 and road E20, it is not as the member says, namely that I chose to communicate during an ongoing crisis, but rather it was after the acute rescue phase and the intervention had been concluded.
We had the incident on the E22 road in fresh memory. We had also recently received the two evaluations, which, among other things, pointed out the authorities' shortcomings in communication with the public in connection with the handling of the incidents on the E22 road.
It was also in the month of April, a month when many choose to switch to summer tires. I judged then that it was a natural role for me to quickly get out a broad message to road users about being vigilant, especially since there were weather warnings from SMHI that there could be further snow in the coming days. Therefore, it was important to get the information out as broadly as possible.
I hope that I have answered the questions, Madam Speaker. I have already answered the questions in previous interpellation debates and also in the Committee on the Constitution. There are still many questions that need to be answered regarding how the work can be carried out better and how the authorities, which according to the principle of responsibility bear the responsibility for crisis management in the acute phase, can coordinate better and obtain a better situational awareness.
There are also political decisions that need to be made. Here I have indicated that we are now reviewing winter road maintenance, that we have already made decisions to task the Transport Agency with extending the period for summer tires, and that we are reviewing increased fines. I do not rule out that more will be required, but the government has taken and will take measures, Madam Speaker.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Madam Speaker! I can only state that this debate did not provide that many answers and did not offer much hope for the future. I had hoped to hear a minister who chooses Sweden in a crisis. I think that the minister does not at all seem to reflect on their own leadership in a crisis. No one, at least not I, has questioned the authorities' responsibility. But I think that one can demand more from the responsible minister's leadership in a crisis.
I do not think we have received particularly many new messages or heard about any new initiatives regarding how the minister intends to act to avoid repeated problems in traffic. On the other hand, we have heard quite a few references to someone else, somewhere else.
I also perceive that the minister does not intend in any way to act to prioritize an earlier start of construction for the long-requested reconstruction of national road 50 between Nykyrka and Brattebro backe. I regret that. I think it would have been fine leadership if we could at least have received a commitment from the minister in that matter.
Instead, we see a minister who frequently evades his responsibility and furthermore needs backing from one of the Riksdag's biggest populists. I just want to say that it doesn't have to be so. If Andreas Carlson does not want to be a minister, there are others who can take over. I am of the firm opinion that it would be better for Sweden with more of shared responsibility for Sweden and less of influence from the right-wing populists' divisive forces.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I do not have and should not have any views on the Riksdag's rules of debate. I have many years in the Riksdag behind me and am well aware that every Member of Parliament can enter into this type of debate. I do not want to have any views on that. In interpellation debates that I have had here, Madam Speaker, this has been quite commonly occurring. It is therefore not any new phenomenon, not for me in any case.
Regarding the government's actions and the government's various decisions, the government has already tasked the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency to report on how the crisis preparedness perspective has functioned and how it can be improved. The assignment also includes highlighting any ambiguities and deviations regarding responsibilities and roles that can be identified from the incident, and also analyzing how the so-called principle of responsibility has functioned.
I think, Madam Speaker, that in the final entry we receive a clear statement from the Member that there is no criticism regarding the authorities' responsibility. This is, let me say, quite new. Every authority that has been involved is self-critical. Trafikverket has conducted its own review of the incident on the E22, where they point out, for example, improvements in winter road maintenance. There is, therefore, self-criticism at that authority and several others.
I expect the authorities to now take their responsibility, based on the principle of responsibility, and strengthen their routines and ensure better cooperation. The Government and I will follow this very closely.
We also received a receipt at the situation on the E4, where cooperation worked better than at the situation on the E22. Obviously, the authorities have already learned the lesson. But there is much more to do, and I am very eager to get that in place. I will definitely follow up on this.
Thank you very much for this debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.