Response to interpellation 2024/25:233 on functional snow removal
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers it a priority to create a robust and efficient system for transport infrastructure where maintenance and investments are carried out cost-effectively 1. KD argues that effective competition is a prerequisite for growth 1 and that the government is implementing an action plan for improved winter road maintenance with a historically large investment in road maintenance 1 2. KD argues that the government's plan covers the entire maintenance debt on the roadside 3. S considers that there is a market failure and that the current system does not work 4. S argues that maintenance is not prioritized 5 and that citizens must be put first before companies 6. S criticizes the government for allocating too little money to railways 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 Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Gunilla Svantorp has asked me if I intend to review how the procurement system that prevails regarding snow removal works in practice and, if necessary, change it with a focus on function and not market.
It is a priority for the government to shape a robust and efficient system for the transport infrastructure where the advantages of each mode of transport can be utilized in the best way and complement each other. Both maintenance and investments in transport infrastructure need to be carried out in a cost-effective manner where as much social benefit as possible is created within a given economic framework. Large parts of Trafikverket's activities have been performed by outsourced suppliers for a long time.
One of the prerequisites for creating long-term productivity, increased growth, economic prosperity, and competitiveness is that there is effective competition in the markets where the companies operate. To ensure this, the operations need to be managed and monitored so that procured suppliers fulfill their commitments. Trafikverket has developed modern methods and ways of working for monitoring. Among other things, GPS is used in the vehicles that clear snow, which makes it possible to monitor the work performed at a detailed level. Trafikverket also hires a third party who monitors the contractors' work and checks that the interventions both start and are completed at the right time and of the right quality. It is important to ensure that the contractors fulfill their commitments.
The government has taken measures. Trafikverket is now working on the implementation of the action plan established based on the government mandate that the agency has received and recently reported. The mandate included accounting for improvement measures in winter road maintenance aimed at ensuring accessibility, reliability, and traffic safety in road traffic.
In conclusion, I also want to highlight the importance of being well-prepared and planning one's travels during the winter, not least during severe weather. If the snow falls heavily, especially in combination with wind, the conditions for maintaining functional winter road maintenance are challenging. Snowdrifts can block roads very quickly and create accessibility problems. Of course, everyone must also take personal responsibility and consider whether it is appropriate to head out, especially if the vehicle is not equipped with winter tires.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I intended to dwell a little on what my question was about, namely the market that exists around transport – and, if I may still say, the market failure that we see.
If we step back a bit and look at how it looked before 1992, we see that we had a road authority. In 1992 it was divided into two parts: partly an administrative part, and partly a production part. The production part became Vägverket Produktion, which today is Svevia. The idea with Vägverket Produktion was that it should be put out to tender.
In January this year, that is almost a year ago, Tomas Blomqvist, former department head in Umeå, was quoted in a column in Aftonbladet after the snow chaos we saw then. It was Peter Kadhammar who wrote the column, and Tomas Blomqvist had in a letter to Peter Kadhammar written: "One of the first decisions we took was to get rid of almost a thousand road graders, trucks, snowplow equipment, sanding and salting equipment abroad so that they would not reach our competitors."
They were sold to Russia and the Baltics, and in the contracts with those who purchased the equipment, it stated that it could not be sold back to Vägverket Produktion. Peter Kadhammar notes in the chronicle that this was a massive destruction of capital and that the personnel organization was torn apart. It is impossible to do anything other than agree; that is exactly what happened.
What happened then after the reorganization had actually been carried out? Well, Vägverket - which later became Trafikverket - procures the operation of the road network in a basic package where the dimensioning is based on a winter with normal precipitation. We can go back to Vägverket and see what Tomas Blomqvist writes in his letter to Peter Kadhammar: "At Vägverket, we could direct resources where they were needed on a minute's notice. Today, multi-year procurements are made in a giant organization. The clients sit and steer without the possibility of leading the operation they have ordered."
Lowest bid wins. What happens when the precipitation is not normal? Well, then we see the chaos we saw in January this year and that we saw down in Skåne just recently. Does the Minister of the Interior think the current system works?
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Mr. Speaker! The first thing I want to do is thank the Minister for Infrastructure for being here today and taking this debate. Many of us, already in January, after the great chaos on the E22, wished to participate in the debate on the interpellation that my colleague Adrian Magnusson had submitted to discuss the situation. That interpellation was, however, handed over to another minister, so it is pleasant to get the chance today.
It is the case, Mr. Speaker, that we now in yet another debate must speak about the situation that time and again risks arising on the E22 when winter makes its entrance. In January, thousands of people were stranded for up to a day. People froze, people were without food and water, and people worried for their lives. Most recently now in November, we experienced a repeat of that event, even if it thankfully did not become as chaotic. It was a milder variant as it was not such a large snow chaos. But even this time, it concerned people who could not get to and from work, about children who were left behind in schools, and about a total lack of information.
For many, the E22 is not just a road but the only possibility they have to make everyday life work. In Skåne - and especially in the eastern parts, which I represent among others - the railway hardly exists. The car is the only alternative for getting to and from work, school, and leisure activities, and for getting to family and friends, and when the E22 gets congested, everyday life becomes impossible.
Just as I mentioned in the debate nearly a year ago, a government obviously cannot influence the weather, but this is about so much more than just the weather. We have a system where snow removal is a service in a market that is clearly not functioning. We also know that maintenance is not prioritized, and we know that fewer snowplows are to cover larger areas than before. The consequence of this is, in fact, devastating.
A citizen who worked during the recent crisis on the E22 now in November described the maintenance as a catastrophe, and unfortunately, that is true. The chaos clearly shows that the market cannot handle society's needs when it really matters.
The Minister mentioned in his answer that it is important for people to plan their travels, and of course it is. But for many, it is a luxury they cannot afford. In these economically tough times, we must understand that far from everyone has the luxury of being able to work from home. People must be able to get to work, especially if they are to be able to pay expensive electricity bills, put food on the table, and buy Christmas presents for their children. People do not always have the luxury of being able to stay home from work.
Therefore, I want to ask Minister Andreas Carlson: When will the government ensure that both the road maintenance and the snow removal are a function where reliability is put first? We simply cannot continue as it is now. The roads must function regardless of the weather.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Gunilla Svantorp for raising this important issue and the Minister for being here and taking the debate.
What is important to emphasize regarding the incident in Skåne on January 3 is that we need to learn from that incident - and from other incidents during the late winter - so that we do not end up in the same situation again. Unfortunately, as my party colleague Anna Wallentheim described, it became very problematic even this autumn. The fact is that winter comes every year and that it can look different depending on where in the country we are located.
The incident with the snow chaos in Skåne became extremely troublesome; many were left stranded for up to a day. Fortunately, those affected managed without very serious consequences. But what was and is extremely serious is that parts of society are totally incapable of coming to the aid of those affected. It took an unacceptably long time for Trafikverket to act.
Of course, one can speak of individual responsibility for not heading out on the roads, but the question is significantly larger than that. The incident on the E22 shows how vulnerable society is, but perhaps also that people's expectations and demands for functioning infrastructure and transport opportunities have increased – naturally also depending on where in the country one is located. It is therefore not possible to just speak of individual responsibility when society fails.
Several investigations have been conducted since the snow chaos, including by Trafikverket, Länsstyrelsen Skåne, and MSB. There may also be more that I have not found. Trafikverket's organization and function is an issue that is often discussed in the transport committee. As recently as in this week's debates on the budget and the infrastructure bill, several speakers voiced their criticism of Trafikverket's shortcomings, and I appreciated that the clearest critics are those who now have both the responsibility for and the opportunity to do something about what is not working.
This autumn, the Swedish Transport Administration, on behalf of the government, presented an action plan for improved road maintenance. The action plan identifies nine parts that shall ensure better snow removal. The measures there are estimated to cost 12-20 million for 2024 and 2025, and additional resources are required moving forward.
I know that the government, in its directives, tasked Trafikverket with describing the costs in the action plan, but I must still ask the Minister: How can it be that it costs more resources to carry out something that I believe everyone considers to be self-evidently part of the agency's basic mandate? How can it cost more money to clarify responsibilities and mandates within Trafikverket when handling road disruptions, or for that matter, to clarify responsibilities and mandates for cooperation? Should this not, by self-evidence, be something that is included in the agency's basic mandate?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the members for their commitment.
This is a question that I have had recurring discussions about both here in the chamber and in the Committee on Transport. I have also in the Committee on the Constitution answered questions about the government's actions in connection with the situation on the E22 and can state that the Committee on the Constitution has not pointed out any deficiencies in the government's actions in the matter. It did, however, involve quite large deficiencies in the authorities' work, which have been well addressed in the investigations that have been conducted. Each authority is taking measures. I also expect that they do so, because what happened on the E22 at the beginning of the year cannot be seen as anything other than a major failure.
That was also why the government gave a very clear mandate to Trafikverket to develop an action plan for improved winter road maintenance, which was presented in the autumn. It contains very clear parts concerning strengthening its own capacity, cooperation with other actors and information to society, as well as having a better situational awareness in order to be able to provide well-founded information. It is not, as one of the members suggested, that we are only pointing to personal responsibility. On the contrary, we have truly pointed to the authorities' responsibility and, with these measures, shown that we take this fully seriously.
"Why does it cost more?" asked Carina Ödebrink. One of the measures Trafikverket is taking is that they now have a readiness to have heavy-duty tow trucks ready in different parts of the country and be able to move them to where very troublesome weather conditions are expected, so that they are prepared and can act proactively. It is clear that this costs more money, but it is something that is judged to be worth the effort and which was also in place during the autumn.
I think one should be a bit careful about saying that it is an exact repeat and that what we saw on the E22 a few weeks ago, at the beginning of winter, is the same thing that happened on the E22 at the beginning of the year. Because it is not. Now we saw that the authorities worked much more closely. Even in connection with the situation at the E4, which I believe Carina Ödebrink is well aware of, we saw that the authorities worked much more proactively and that they have drawn lessons from what happened.
The fundamental issue is also about how maintenance on roads is organized. Here, it is very important to strengthen the procurement competence and that every tax krona goes to what it is intended for. However, it is also about prioritization. Anna Wallentheim said that it is known that maintenance is not prioritized, but that is exactly what we are changing now. We are changing road maintenance and making a historically large investment in it - so large that the Social Democrats are unable to stay with us all the way and instead make a reduction of a full 45 billion during the coming twelve-year period in comparison with the government's historically large road maintenance investment. That is where the money for winter road maintenance is taken from.
Does one mean seriously that maintenance needs to be prioritized and that winter road maintenance and snow removal need to become better? How is it to be reconciled over the next twelve years when one simultaneously reduces the budget for winter road maintenance by a full 45 billion kronor? The total maintenance debt on the roadside is assessed to be 35 billion, Mr. Speaker, so the Social Democrats are therefore removing even more than the total debt.
I would welcome a good and constructive discussion about this. However, I appeal to the members to take responsibility for the fine words here in the chamber in their own budget proposals in the infrastructure area, where they actually make draconian cuts to winter road maintenance that have direct effects for those who are to travel on the roads in our elongated country.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Mr. Speaker! I obviously received no answer to my question, which concerned the system and market failures. The Minister does not want to talk about that. It is much easier to talk about others and, above all, about what we Social Democrats do or do not do.
I intended to continue with Peter Kadhammar's excellent article from January this year. In it, he writes about how he received a letter from Sven Lindh, former assistant road master in Dalsland, describing how the disaster in 1980, when the Tjörn Bridge collapsed, was handled within the then Vägverket. At three in the morning, the operations manager called the road director, and at six o'clock, all managers gathered for a meeting. After that, the director-general was on site to answer questions from the media and others. At that time, it was an organization with clear areas of responsibility, Kadhammar notes.
Lindh further describes in his letter how 5 road masters were responsible for 160 miles of road in Dalsland and how, with the help of 20-25 people, 3 own trucks, 3 road graders, loaders and so on, they had perfect control over all roads. If needed, trucks were hired during the winter to plow and sand. The roads were inspected daily, and during the winter, they went out and checked the roads at night.
We can of course do very much differently today, given technological development and so on, but who is it today who knows what should be done? Who decides what, and - above all - who is responsible for what?
I think this is a sad chronicle to read, but it is very important. It has lain on my desk ever since January, when we last debated the E22. This and other testimonies strengthen my conviction every day regarding the system where the lowest price wins and that we are constantly engaged in remedial instead of preventive maintenance. Everyone knows that remedial maintenance is significantly more expensive than preventive maintenance. Everyone also actually knows that this system does not work.
Still, the Minister does not want to, when we debate this – and we do so from time to time, since we are in the same area – to discuss the so important question of what constitutes critical infrastructure and how it should be managed. Can we give away the authority when it comes to critical infrastructure? I really think the Minister should answer that question, given that he is responsible for precisely that critical infrastructure.
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by extending a big thank you to Gunilla Svantorp for this interpellation debate and for so clearly pointing out some of the things that we Social Democrats are trying to point out in many areas, namely failures when the market is allowed to participate in governing.
It may not come as a major shock that I, as a Social Democrat, am very skeptical of the right-wing government's and the Sweden Democrats' trust in the market. On the other hand, I am sincerely shocked, and sometimes also both disappointed and angry, that the right-wing parties and the Sweden Democrats so clearly turn a blind eye to market failures in area after area, for example when it comes to schools, HVB homes, healthcare, and snow removal.
Both I and my party will fight for this until the government and the Sweden Democrats realize that it is Sweden and all the citizens who live here who must be put first, not companies that extract tax money as profit, make it more expensive and more dangerous to live here, or make it more dangerous on our roads.
Mr. Speaker! There are also other obvious problems. Since I sit on the Justice Committee, I want to quickly mention that it is, of course, a problem that every time winter arrives, we have far too many foreign trucks without winter tires blocking our roads. The police do not have sufficient resources to carry out the controls that would ensure the law is complied with, and thus it becomes toothless in practice.
There is no systematic work on how we are to follow up on this law. I believe that the government must take responsibility for market failures but also for introducing more controls at our borders and ensuring that the requirement for winter tires is actually upheld. It is required for our roads to be safe for all road users, regardless of the weather.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, but I must still say that I think the Minister is somewhat contradicting himself.
In the debate we had here this week on the infrastructure bill, the government emphasized several times the importance of getting more infrastructure for the money and more money for infrastructure. We need more bang for the buck we allocate.
The Minister also emphasized the importance of really ensuring that pressure is increased on Trafikverket to keep costs down. In that case, I think it is remarkable that it should cost more to take measures and purchase machines to carry out a mission that reasonably should be the most prioritized for Trafikverket. That can be heard when one listens primarily to the government's coalition partners regarding the criticism of how Trafikverket has developed since 2010.
In conclusion, I would like to point out another thing in the Minister's response. He said as follows: "One of the prerequisites for creating long-term productivity, increased growth, economic prosperity and competitiveness is that there is effective competition in the markets where the companies operate."
One can ask the question: What is a market? And are there activities that are so socially important that society needs greater control over them to ensure that they actually function?
The question I have is whether the market is servant or master in the world of the Council of State. I actually experience that it is a matter of the market being more important than the society functioning.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Nothing can be more wrong.
Carina Ödebrink! I am merely calling the member's attention, Mr. Speaker. I want to answer the member's direct question. The purpose is not the market itself, but it is the function.
The Director General himself speaks of more bang for the buck here, and as I have established many times, we need much more money for infrastructure but also more infrastructure maintenance for the money. In that case, it is important to see the power of all the actors who can be involved and contribute, but it is of course also important that Trafikverket's work with procurement is strengthened and that the contracting competence and the operational capacity are strengthened. We are working on all of that.
This is also an answer to Gunilla Svantorp's question. I will elaborate on the answer further. I also expect an answer as to how one has the nerve to speak about the importance of road maintenance and at the same time cut 45 billion kronor. I also expect an answer to that, Mr. Speaker.
It is preventive maintenance and innovative methods that we need to introduce so that there is significantly better functionality in the maintenance on both the roadside and the railway side. There are companies that can participate and contribute. They should not be shut out for any ideological reason or because one thinks that what one has been involved in facilitating while sitting in a government position is a failure. It is about correcting the deficiencies we see, and that is where the government is now taking measures to strengthen Trafikverket's work.
Before winter, Trafikverket is changing a number of working methods to strengthen precisely the proactive capability in the event of extreme weather situations or troublesome weather situations.
The measures strengthen the possibility to act proactively together with the contractors. It can involve redistribution of resources and resource reinforcements financed by Trafikverket. It can also involve gathering more information and having better dialogue with the contractors who are out on the roads and performing maintenance during both winter and summer. It provides a good basis for the decisions that are to be made, especially during the winter.
There is also work being done to collect data from vehicles traveling on the roads where one can obtain better and more accurate measures.
All of this is important to strengthen in the system for road maintenance that we have had since the 90s. The government's ambition is to strengthen the function in this, and the market and the actors that exist are of course a means for us to get better functioning roads.
A risk with repeatedly speaking about this as a threat and the market itself as one of the problems, and then not doing anything about it when one is in a government position, is that the actors who could actually step in and invest in strengthening the maintenance will hold back because they see a risk that they will not be able to continue to develop their business in the long term.
It is important to see the value of procurement and competition. But it is not only the lowest price, which the members are touching upon, that should be guiding. It is also effective measures so that one achieves high accessibility, strengthened work with traffic safety, and also as little impact as possible on the traffic that is dependent on traveling by road - or for that part, by railway, which we also work a lot with to strengthen the maintenance work on.
Mr. Speaker! It is an answer to the question to Gunilla Svantorp, who is the interpellant. I expect an answer to the question of how one can cut 45 billion and at the same time stand here in the chamber today and speak about the importance of investing in road maintenance.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister shall receive an answer to his question. It is, of course, a matter of priorities.
In the infrastructure bill, the Minister and the government have a very skewed distribution between road and railway. At the same time, the Minister says in every debate we have that one must not pit modes of transport against each other. This government does not do that, he says - implicitly, unlike all other governments, which have done so. They have not, but it is one of those talking points that is repeated all the time.
This government allocates 5 percent to railways, which means that 10-15 percent of the maintenance debt will be covered. That is not reasonable. That was the reason why we reprioritized. We believe, after all, that both types of transport are equally important. With that reprioritization, there will still be 28-29 percent more maintenance on roads than there is today. That is the answer to that question.
It is important that more money is obtained for maintenance, said the Minister. Given that it stands in the action plan that Trafikverket has developed that one should have a third party to check what the contractors do, whether they do what they are contracted to do, I really wonder if the Minister means that one gets more maintenance for the money when one spends money on a control function. Why is that?
I must also say something about what the Minister said at the end of his answer – that everyone must consider whether they need to leave. It was Anna Wallentheim who was inside earlier.
There are people who cannot choose to work from home and must go out on the roads. They may be going to work at hospitals, driving buses, or doing something else. How does the Minister intend for them to get to and from work?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is for the sake of these people - those who depend on getting themselves along the roads to get to work or who work on the road - that others who can refrain from taking the car if the road conditions are very bad should actually do so. That is my recommendation. It is precisely for those people who are dependent on being able to travel on the roads that others who perhaps can forgo the trip or wait a day should do so if they can. That is what my plea is, quite simply.
Mr. Speaker! It was very good that we received a clear answer to the question of why the Social Democrats, in their follow-up motion to the infrastructure bill and in their reservation, propose a reduction of 45 billion kronor on roads. They say that it is, of course, about priorities. That is a good message to the person who risks getting stuck in a pothole on the way to work or who will have to drive on a road that could not be repaired at the pace the government wants.
The government is now presenting a plan for the first time to address the entire maintenance debt on the road side. With the Social Democrats' policy, it would not be possible. The investment we are making on the road side therefore concerns the entire maintenance debt. The investment we are making on the railway side is the maximum of what the Transport Administration assesses they can convert. If one calculates in the same way as in the current plan, which the previous government produced, railway maintenance is increased by 18 percent. It is a significant reinforcement of even the railway maintenance.
Mr. Speaker! I believe the questions will continue to come regarding how the Social Democrats could proceed with such a dramatic cut in road maintenance, but today in the chamber we have received an answer. It was a deprioritization. The government is making a different prioritization. We are maximizing maintenance on both the road and railway sides so that the road network and the railway can be relied upon throughout Sweden. Thank you for the debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.