Response to interpellation 2024/25:415 on cooperation between authorities in Skåne
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the authorities' handling of the snowstorm on the E22 was a failure 1. M emphasizes that the authorities have a responsibility to exercise and train staff to act proactively 1, and that through regulatory letters, requirements are set for decisiveness to build an organizational culture. M also proposes an explicit principle of action. S argues that the coordination between authorities worked poorly and that a clear leadership role was lacking 2. S argues that one must dare to exceed budgets in a crisis 3 and that a principle of action could have influenced the outcome positively 4. S wants to continue following the work 4. M is ready to answer questions to build a better preparedness 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 Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Mr. Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me if I am prepared to take some measures to ensure that responsible authorities in Skåne carry out joint exercises to strengthen the ability to cooperate and make quick decisions in a crisis.
A year ago, I responded to Adrian Magnusson's interpellation regarding the management of the effects on the E22 of the snowstorm that moved over southern Sweden a few days into 2024. I stated then that the authorities' management of the situation was lacking and that it could not be described as anything other than a failure.
Against this background, on 22 February 2024, the government commissioned the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, MSB, to evaluate the management of the societal disruptions during the landslide in Stenungsund in 2023, the grounding of the ferry Marco Polo in Blekinge in 2023, and the traffic situation on the E22 in Skåne in 2024. In its report on the assignment, MSB stated that the management of the traffic problems on the E22 was characterized by a lack of situational awareness, not least in relation to the absence of a proactive approach in the initial stage.
The Ordinance (2022:524) on State Authorities' Preparedness states that each authority shall be responsible for ensuring that the personnel at the authority receive the training and exercise needed for it to be able to perform its tasks during peacetime crisis situations. The Government Offices have received information from the County Administrative Board in Skåne that they have conducted several trainings and during 2024 carried out development work relevant to the types of situations that took place on the E22 a little over a year ago.
The Government has, in the 2025 regulatory letter, tasked the preparedness authorities, including the County Administrative Board in Skåne, with ensuring that the authorities have the ability to act proactively and decisively in both the management of peacetime crisis situations and in the event of war and the threat of war. In addition to the requirements set out in the Ordinance on State Authorities' Preparedness, the authorities shall, for this purpose, train and exercise their staff as well as ensure that each authority strengthens a culture and a way of working based on the requirements that a war entails.
Furthermore, the government decided in December last year on the direction for civil defense for the period 2025–2030. This decision is addressed to the preparedness authorities. According to the decision, the authorities shall, through planning and preparation for high alert, contribute to achieving the goal for civil defense that the Riksdag has decided. It shall be implemented in order to strengthen the capacity and increase the pace of development of civil defense.
In summary, the County Administrative Board in Skåne, just like other authorities, has a clear responsibility to train and educate its staff to handle all possible crisis situations at different levels of preparedness. The Government is closely following the work, which has now been further intensified, and the authorities' implementation of the assignments.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Minister Bohlin for the answer to this interpellation! Just as the Minister says, the interpellation is based largely on the debate that the Minister and I had a little more than a year ago regarding the chaos on the E22, where over a hundred cars and people were stuck for over a day on the motorway in central Skåne. Afterwards, some criticism was voiced against the various actors in connection with this incident. The Minister knows that I was deeply critical of the government's actions. I do not intend to repeat that debate here today, but it is available in the Riksdag's protocols for anyone who for some reason wishes to relive that discussion.
In the criticism that was presented, it was however clear that the coordination between authorities had functioned all too poorly and that there had been no one who took a clear leadership role. This emerged from Länsstyrelsen Skåne's own investigation, which was submitted in March 2024, but also from the MSB investigation regarding a number of different crises that has been referred to here and which presented its conclusions in August 2024.
It was therefore with great surprise that, shortly after New Year's, I noted the news that the County Administrative Board of Skåne, following the events, had not conducted any exercise with a focus on specifically decisions on cooperation and coordination between different authorities and actors after an incident such as the failure on the E22 in January 2024. I do not believe I was alone in reacting that way when I heard Sveriges Radio's reporting on this.
Mr. Speaker! The Minister mentioned in his answer that it has emerged in contact with Länsstyrelsen Skåne that a considerable number of efforts have actually been made on the theme. I have myself been in contact with Länsstyrelsen Skåne and received the same information. I have even received a long list of the exercises that have, despite everything, been carried out. It is always possible to plead for more exercises, sharper ones, or at a higher level. But exercises have been carried out – that is simply a fact. That is good!
The County Administrative Board of Skåne also engages in a comprehensive amount of development work. The planning for 2025 shows that there is also a considerable amount of work to further strengthen the capacity and to prevent something similar to what happened on the E22 from occurring again. My hope is that a failure like the one that occurred on the E22 in January 2024 shall be avoided in the future.
At the same time, we must be aware that it is only in an active situation that one sees the results of exercises, planning, and preparations. It is only when society is faced with a crisis, such as the one that occurred on the E22 in January 2024, that we know whether all preparations and all exercise and planning had the desired effect.
Mr. Speaker! It is, of course, not possible to determine now whether the government's measures are sufficient or insufficient. What can be stated is that the Minister here today has presented a number of measures that have been taken to prevent something similar from happening again. It can also be stated that the County Administrative Board of Skåne has taken a considerable number of measures and that they plan to do even more. Whether that is sufficient to prevent a situation similar to the one that arose on the E22 in January 2024 from occurring again, only time will tell.
A situation arose with some parallels on the same stretch of road on November 22, 2024. Opinions differ somewhat on how well that situation was handled, but it can at least be established that it was not at all at the level it was in January 2024. There are also, one must still say, continued examples around the country of how winter weather very quickly creates major problems on the roads. One can also have a discussion about what this is due to.
I will, in any case, follow this issue closely. I have no problem returning here to the chamber if it should turn out that the measures are insufficient or if, in a sharp situation, a culture of decisiveness is still lacking.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer from the interpellor! I am pleased to hear that Member Adrian Magnusson has received information from the County Administrative Board regarding the work that has been carried out during 2024 and the training activities that have taken place, and that the County Administrative Board has attempted to internalize the conclusions from the snowstorm on E22 just over a year ago.
I think it is fundamentally good that Adrian Magnusson is submitting this interpellation. It is to do one's job as a Member of Parliament from a constituency – to show that one keeps the focus on these types of issues and management. By us standing here and discussing this issue, we also fundamentally manifest that there is an expectation from the whole of society that this should function better.
It is also honorable of Adrian Magnusson that he also notes and acknowledges what has been and that the measures that have been deemed necessary have been taken. I do not, of course, expect, Mr. Speaker, that Adrian Magnusson will issue a blank check and say that all measures have been sufficient. I do not intend to do that either, neither to the County Administrative Board nor to any other actor, because just as Adrian Magnusson says, this is only tested when one finds oneself in a critical situation.
But all available experience can still be said to indicate that if one practices, one is better prepared to be able to handle also things that are unpredictable, and there is a great intrinsic value in that. We therefore hope and believe that we stand better equipped in this regard moving forward.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the statement and the answer!
If there was any benefit from the events on the E22, it is perhaps that in Skåne, and hopefully also in other places in the country, people have learned that it is important to cooperate. And it is important, which emerged in the report that I have here somewhere among my documents, to try early to get a picture of what the problem is and what is happening and, as also stated here, to work proactively. It is good that different actors have learned from the events on the E22, and I assume that there are more actors than the County Administrative Board who are learning from this type of events. I have no reason to believe otherwise, but I am quite convinced that is the case.
There may, however, still be some things that one could have views on. When these events occurred on November 22, representatives from Trafikverket were out and said that we cannot control the weather and that the day we can do so is a happy day for us all. It was perhaps, I might think, a somewhat unserious tone to have when people in that case, on November 22, were stuck for at least a few hours on the E22. That may not be exactly how one should handle such a situation, but I understand that the Minister does not intend to review statements from individual representatives at Trafikverket here today.
There are, as emerged in the MSB report, a number of lessons that can be developed. As the Minister pointed out, regional cooperation obviously works differently well in different places, which is evident when one compares the three incidents. It is also such a thing that has hopefully emerged in connection with the incidents on the E22 and, I still think, the quite substantial evaluation work that has been carried out thereafter. A number of reports of quite large scope have been produced, where it has been stated that it did not turn out well and that one should have acted differently. One has gone through the sequence of events quite methodically and, for example, stated that already here, early on, the coordination, cooperation, and work began to crack.
If there is anything else that is positive about the events on the E22 – the E22 itself has many positive aspects – it is perhaps that many questions have been raised that may not have been so topical previously. It concerns, for example, the principle of responsibility. What does it mean? Should it apply in all situations? It is those types of reflections, like the importance of coordination, cooperation, and strategies. The operational work can function as well as it can. You can have individual people who make huge efforts in individual places and are very proactive. If one lacks strategy or the ability to cooperate, it might not become meaningless, but it certainly does not get the weight it could have had. As we have noted now in this debate, as we may well call it, there is also a need to practice and plan for this type of events. There is also such things as have emerged after this.
One thing that the report from MSB addresses and that I think one needs to reflect on is what is referred to in the report as the economic approach, i.e., that in the event of a crisis, when one needs to take measures quickly, questions may arise regarding how one should behave economically. There may be a fear that one will exceed budgets and the like, and that can cause one to hesitate in making decisions and taking measures. This is something that one needs to reflect on in addition to cooperation, collaboration, and those types of issues, and also within agencies. If one wants a culture of decisiveness, one may perhaps also, in the event of a crisis, have to dare to exceed the budget. This is something that one continues to reason about.
There are many issues to continue monitoring. But I still think there is reason to be somewhat optimistic that this event has nevertheless strengthened Agency Sweden in some way, if I may put it that way.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Adrian Magnusson, for the contribution! I will not prolong this debate, because I believe that we are fundamentally in quite some agreement.
Speaking of what Magnusson mentions regarding the principle of responsibility, MSB proposes in its evaluation report that an explicit principle of action should be added. Then one could argue that it is not possible to live up to the principle of responsibility without also acting in certain given situations. It is also against that background that the changes in 53 regulatory letters, to the majority of the preparedness authorities, should be seen. We demand decisiveness and proactivity and that an organizational culture is built in order to, so to speak, codify a principle of action also in the regulatory letters, which we believe can be a partial component in making the whole thing work. In the worst case, it can also be a way to evaluate non-functioning leadership in agencies against the new wording in the regulatory letters. All in all, we maintain that we have taken measures that allow us to handle corresponding situations better.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! There is, of course, reason to continue following these questions and to continue reflecting on them and on such things as principles of action and principles of responsibility.
Something that emerged when it came to E22 was, for example, that there were people who were prepared to cut the wire fences quite early but did not do so. With a principle of action, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Now, this is speculative – we can only speculate on what would have happened if this had applied and what would have happened instead in that case. I do not intend to engage in that type of exercise.
I do not intend to prolong the debate either. But in conclusion, I still want to say a word about the fact that there are still things to do and follow up on. The Minister speaks of an expectation. As an opposition politician, I will continue to follow the work, as I said before. Should something similar happen on E22, E4, E6 or any other European route or wherever it may be, there is reason to continue to discuss these events in the chamber. We did, after all, have a fairly robust debate a year ago about what happened on E22. It was also an event that truly prompted a need for a robust debate.
But we will do everything we can at all levels to ensure that what happened on the E22 in January 2024 is not repeated. As I said then: It was a miracle that no one died or was seriously injured. Thank you for the debate!
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Mr. Speaker! I naturally hope that we will not have to meet here due to events on the E22, but I am, of course, ready to answer all kinds of questions, if not otherwise to keep up the pressure on the issue of building our preparedness in this country better in various respects. Thank you for the discussion!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.