Response to interpellation 2024/25:509 on legal certainty in the revocation of driving licenses
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD welcomes Transportstyrelsen's new regulations as a step towards increased legal certainty 1 2 3. KD argues that the rules provide clearer guidance to doctors, become more accurate and lead to fewer driver's license revocations 2. KD emphasizes that there are no requirements for PEth tests and that a single test is not sufficient for revocation 1. KD intends to follow up on the implementation closely 3 and believes it is a shared responsibility to strengthen trust in the state 3. C argues that current practice is not legally certain or evidence-based 4. C claims that incorrect decisions have been made and trust in healthcare has been damaged 5 6. C argues that Transportstyrelsen should not be a morality police 6.
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! Niels Paarup-Petersen has asked me if I intend to take any general initiatives to ensure that the withdrawal of driving licenses is carried out in a legally secure manner and based on scientifically correct methods.
Those who have a driving license must fulfill the personal and medical requirements for holding a driving license. These are specified in more detail in the Transport Agency's medical regulations.
The Transport Agency has recently completed a referral of proposals for new traffic medical regulations and general advice regarding, among other things, alcohol consumption. I can state that the proposal does not contain any requirement that all patients with a driver's license shall provide so-called PEth samples. Nor is there any expansion of the reporting obligation that currently exists for doctors in the Road Traffic Ordinance.
The referred proposal is a step away from the practice that has developed in the area, and I welcome this step that the Transport Agency is now taking.
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though it was a bit short.
It is not a right to have a driver's license. One should not have a driver's license if one drinks, one should not drive a car with alcohol in the blood etcetera. It is important that we establish that so that there is no doubt that the minister and I are in agreement on this.
Even though it is not a right to have a driver's license, it is actually a right to receive legally secure and evidence-based decisions linked to one's healthcare and one's driver's license. But that is not quite how it looks in the current situation based on the information that has emerged.
Since the minister, in his answer, welcomes a change, he seems to—I believe—to consider that the practice has not been good and that decisions that have been taken may not have been legally secure and evidence-based. We know that tests are taken without people being aware of it, which is a problem. We also know that equivalencies are established between general results and individual results, i.e., that the level that applies to an average of the population also applies to an individual. But that is not how reality looks. A certain level in the PEth test does not prove an individual person's alcohol intake.
A researcher from Lund University says that most people are not aware that degradation times can vary for different people. One can measure everything from a week's consumption to a month's consumption in the same sample. This obviously makes a difference when it comes to how much the individual has drunk. Nevertheless, it is valued in the same way by Transportstyrelsen, which is a major challenge.
A huge number of people have contacted me about this. We know that one cannot always trust everything one hears. But I have seen enough concrete examples, including test results, decisions from Transportstyrelsen and doctors and so on, which show that PEth results in practice are sufficient to lose one's driver's license. It is neither reasonable nor legally secure. It also damages trust in both healthcare and the state, which makes many doctors skeptical of how it looks.
I know that PEth tests have become more common internationally and in the workplace, and they are valuable as a basis for discussion. They do show that one has consumed alcohol, because without alcohol no result is visible. I therefore want to emphasize that it is good that we have this type of test. But one cannot draw hasty conclusions from them without thinking about the consequences and taking the whole picture into account.
There are those who blow into the breathalyzer every day in their jobs as truck drivers, and it has never been a problem. Still, they are deprived of their driver's licenses based on a general test that does not show if they actually have driven a car with alcohol in their blood. They are considered a danger in traffic simply because of the PEth test, even though they blow green in the breathalyzer every day.
I have seen excerpts from healthcare that show that patients, after the doctor has said that their PEth is high, reduce their consumption immediately and thus have control over the consumption. Still, they lose their driver's license.
As has been said, a test is good, but it cannot stand alone. One cannot equate the general levels with what the individual actually has consumed. This is something researchers and doctors agree on, and yet it is exactly what happens. People lose jobs and income without ever having driven intoxicated or been a danger in traffic.
Will the minister take this seriously and address the real problems that exist? It is not enough to be satisfied with Transportstyrelsen's new guidelines, which Transportstyrelsen recently changed despite never having said that anything was wrong with the previous guidelines.
Can the Government promise that driving licenses will no longer be revoked based solely on PEth tests?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! First, I would like to thank you for the interpellation and the member's commitment. I do not believe that anyone questions the member's motives for getting involved.
I also noted the clarification at the beginning. It is the case that sobriety in traffic is an important factor in achieving the zero vision. Today, four out of ten drivers who die in traffic have alcohol or drugs in their bodies. Increasing sobriety in traffic would therefore mean that we come closer to the zero vision. The interpellation is about something else than that, but it is still important to establish in this debate that there is a broad consensus on strengthening sobriety in traffic as part of the work to achieve the zero vision.
The interpellation concerns the medical requirements and their application. In order to obtain and retain a driver's license, the medical requirements must be met. The purpose of the regulatory framework is not for ordinary people to be prevented from driving in an unjustified manner, but the purpose is to maintain road safety. Let me emphasize that the medical requirements shall rest on established research and that established measurement methods of fixed limit values shall be used. This is important for reasons of legal certainty.
I expect the Transport Agency to collect and evaluate the views that exist in its work now and in the future. As I said in my first answer, I welcome the revision of the regulations that has already been proposed. Prior to this revision, views have been gathered and the medical profession has been listened to. The changes mean that not only elevated tests can lead to revocation. The regulations are also judged to provide clearer guidance to the country's doctors.
According to the Swedish Transport Agency's assessment, the regulations will become more accurate and thus lead to fewer driver's license revocations in this area. When the new regulations are in place, it is possible to re-apply for a driver's license permit and be assessed according to these new regulations. I believe it is important to emphasize this.
Some unconfirmed information has appeared in the debate that has been spread, partly regarding the amount of alcohol required to have a driver's license revoked, and partly regarding the tests that are used. The Transport Agency has pointed out that parts of the reporting have been misleading, and they have issued clarifications. It is important that the public is not misled. We all have a responsibility to be correct and clear, otherwise we risk undermining trust in rules and authorities.
Transportstyrelsen is now conducting a regulatory review. The new rules will clarify when a driver is medically unfit for a driving license. The authority's assessment is, as stated, that the rule change will result in fewer license revocations within this area. That is the announcement the authority has given, and it is the announcement I can convey today.
Let me add that the government will, of course, follow this work very closely for precisely the reasons I have underlined as important, that is, legal certainty and that one does not equate abuse with the Socialstyrelsen's definition of risk use. Transportstyrelsen has clarified that this is not the case. There are also no requirements for doctors to perform PEth tests, and Transportstyrelsen has no proposals to lower limits and allow less alcohol.
I hope that this was a clear answer to the interpellant's pressing question.
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Madam Speaker! It is good that the Minister takes this seriously. We appear to be in agreement that the guidelines have not been entirely correct and that this has led to incorrect decisions. In that case, it is important that one is reviewed again, and I am glad that this will happen.
As the Minister was concerned about drunk driving leading to fatalities. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the methods we have to ensure that people do not drive while intoxicated are correct, have the confidence of the population, and do not lead to people staying away from healthcare instead of going there.
It is one of the things that the medical profession has been very clear about. The way the tests have been used, and which one might to some extent still be used, leads to diminished trust in healthcare. It is a great danger that in itself can lead to fewer people receiving treatment for potential problems.
I have spoken with several doctors in connection with this. All are in agreement that a good doctor has a good handling of these tests. If you have a high test value, the doctor has a conversation with you about your consumption. If you can show that you do not have problems, there is nothing that needs to be passed on. It must be very clear so that we can increase the trust in healthcare again.
I completely agree that it must be based on facts. We cannot always determine how it is with what is written in the media. We can agree that in different contexts we have seen things in the newspapers that one perhaps does not fully recognize from reality.
That there have been many occasions where people have been subjected to treatment that lacks legal certainty is beyond all doubt, and the Transportstyrelsen, which is an agency under the government, has contributed to this. That responsibility lies with the government.
It is important that it also becomes clear that there are people who have lost their driver's licenses, their jobs and their incomes etcetera due to incorrect decisions. It is important that it also comes up. That is actually the case.
That is also why the Transport Agency now realizes that the guidelines must be changed because incorrect decisions have been made. Otherwise, one would probably not change them, I guess.
The responsibility for these people's fates must also be taken seriously. I have still not quite seen that from either the Transport Agency or the Minister for the Government in the current situation.
It is not enough to be satisfied that the Transport Agency is issuing new guidelines. We must ensure that the actual consequences become better than they are today.
I appreciate that the Minister expects the Transport Agency to now listen to the criticism that has come with the many different submissions regarding individuals etcetera and ensure that it is reflected in the guidelines.
I would be even happier if the Minister could assure me that this will happen and that he is not merely expecting it.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member very much for the question.
The administrative model in Sweden is such that agencies are under the government and not under individual ministers. On the other hand, it is of course true that I expect that what the Transportstyrelsen has communicated in the form of it leading to fewer people being affected will also become a reality. It is something that the government will follow.
I want to be clear and therefore repeat what I said. The new regulations are judged to provide clearer guidance to the country's doctors. I believe that is important given what the member is raising. According to Transportstyrelsen's assessment, the regulations will become more accurate and, as I said, lead to fewer driver's license revocations in the area.
It is also important that the person who feels they have received an incorrect decision can – when the new regulations are in place – apply for a driving license permit for review against the new regulations. In that way, the process moves further forward towards what the member very rightly points out regarding legal certainty. One shall have their case reviewed again against the new regulations.
It may be important to establish, as it is part of the discussion that has arisen as a result of media reports, that there is currently no, and no, and no proposed, compulsion for patients with driver's licenses to take PEth blood samples.
Even in the new regulations, there is a possibility to, in cases where blood samples are required, use CDT blood samples. A CDT test is a blood sample used to assess alcohol consumption over time. That possibility will continue to exist.
At the same time as I say this, I want to emphasize that a single test exceeding the limit with the PEth method is not sufficient. At least two tests, and often more, are required with a period of at least five weeks between the tests. It is, of course, important that it is also applied in that manner.
Madam Speaker! Otherwise, I believe I have already answered the questions. It is important to say that the new referred proposal is a step away from the practice that has developed in the area. I welcome the step that the Transport Agency is now taking.
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Madam Speaker! I appreciate the answers. I think it is good that we can have an open debate about these matters. I understand the administrative model. I believe that most people perceive that the agency which falls under a minister is expected to be one for which the minister has a somewhat special responsibility.
Given the things that have happened, we must hope that it gets better. It has truly been insecure regarding the rule of law, and decisions have been made that should not have been made. I still want to emphasize that it is so.
It is clear that there are some people, including myself, whose trust in the authority has been damaged somewhat in connection with this. It is experts from the minister's own authority who call this a legal scandal. Doctors point out that trust in healthcare has been undermined. Researchers say that the samples cannot stand on their own and be used as they have been.
The Transport Agency has provided incorrect information to the courts. People who have never posed a danger in traffic have had their driver's licenses revoked.
The feeling that we can fully trust that the Transport Agency will make the new regulations exactly as they should be is perhaps not one hundred percent, unfortunately. I wish it were so, but quite a few who have contacted me do not quite have that perception. That also includes doctors etcetera.
In practice, one has had to forbid ordinary alcohol consumption for some people on one's own initiative. This does not apply to everyone. That must truly be emphasized, because the image that has been given is that it applies to everyone. It really does not. It is not Transportstyrelsens job to be a morality police.
The question remains a bit. When will the new guidelines arrive, Minister? Does the Minister really intend to follow up on the new guidelines and ensure that the positions taken in every case from now on are legally secure and based on evidence and democratic decisions?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would also like to thank the members for a constructive and objective discussion.
Just as the member was correct, one cannot always influence how it is reintroduced and described. Being able to discuss this in substance is sufficient, even without exaggerations.
I welcome the new regulations being developed and the new practice. I have also informed that one can be tested against the new regulations even if one has lost their driving license authorization according to the old practice.
It is of course the case that I am responsible for matters that fall under my area of preparation. That is why I am here today and answering questions about the issue that the interpellation concerns.
I can give a very clear answer. Naturally, it is my intention to follow up on this carefully so that the application becomes exactly as the Transport Agency has described it should be. I suspect that Niels Paarup-Petersen will also follow this issue and that we can have continued dialogue on this.
It is important that the application becomes as intended and that it can ultimately strengthen trust in the state and the public sector. There, we have a shared responsibility to achieve the change that is needed and which now lies with the Transport Agency to undertake. It is underway, and a proposal has been referred.
It is also about contributing to objectivity and focus on both this issue and on what we both began by saying. It is a matter of strengthening road safety and ensuring that we do not have intoxicated drivers in traffic. It is partly a different issue than the one we are discussing here today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.