A more efficient and more legally secure clamping
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S considers the government's proposal for increased clamping to be good and a step forward in tightening control 1. 1 S argues that they have prioritized the issue and that the current legislation allows for clamping for longer than 36 hours in cases of traffic danger 1. 2 S wants to establish a professional traffic inspection 2. 3 S wants to establish a professional traffic inspection to achieve more effective methods 3. 4 SD wants to remove the current time limit of 36 hours for clamping 4. 4 SD proposes a special unit within the police for inspections of professional traffic 4. M argues that the current government has succeeded in introducing clamping for real in two years 5. 6 M does not want to establish a new authority but wants better coordination and more police officers on the roads 6. 7 KD argues that clamping is important for road safety and to counter unfair competition 7. 7 KD is pleased with the government's proposal for clearer legislation and increased funding for justice authorities 7. 8 KD is not sure that a new authority is the right way and advocates for better coordination 8. 9 L argues that clamping is necessary to deter traffic-dangerous drivers and to collect sanction fees 9. 9 L advocates for the decision-making power to be extended to civil-employed vehicle inspectors 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to welcome our listeners in the gallery. You may be sitting there wondering why there are so few of us in here now that we are going to debate. But that is because the Committee on Transport today is handling and debating a matter concerning the clamping of vehicles, i.e., when one locks a vehicle, and then it is usually only those of us who sit in the committee who are here.
Mr. Speaker! Today we debate and decide on the government's bill on a more efficient and more legally secure clamping. But let me begin in a slightly broader and larger perspective.
Sweden is a relatively small but very strongly export-dependent country. We are advocates of free trade and the EU's fundamental parts regarding freedom for goods and services. I think it is important to remind ourselves and each other of this in these times of increased nationalism, protectionism, and polarization.
Openness between countries must also be accompanied by clear rules and conditions that do not distort competition and which also ensure safe and fair conditions for those who have the road as their workplace. We must by all means promote a transport industry where there is no room for cheating, crime, or unscrupulous actors who exploit labor through slave contracts.
For us Social Democrats, order and tidiness on our roads is a priority. The mobility package decided by the European Parliament in 2020 is the basis for sound and fair competition, good working conditions for all employees, and safety on the roads within the entire European transport sector, and it was the Social Democrats who pushed to get the mobility package through during the last parliamentary term. It is about Swedish wages and conditions applying on Swedish roads. It is about requirements for rest periods, smart tachographs, and the driver's right to be able to go home regularly. There must be a stop to cabotage fraud and requirements that foreign vehicles must go home at least every eighth week.
Furthermore, it is also important that the police and customs have the possibility to impound vehicles that violate rules or are a danger in traffic. The government's proposal for an expanded impoundment is good and a step further in tightening the control, but in summary, it is also important to state that we, regardless of which rules we decide on in this chamber, also need to ensure that the rules are followed and controlled. Therefore, this issue also concerns the conditions and resources for, for example, the police and customs authorities.
The Social Democratic government therefore also made major investments in increased controls through earmarked resources to the Swedish Police Authority, which has actually led to an increase in road checks. Current legislation allows for clamping for longer than 36 hours to prevent traffic with vehicles that pose a significant danger to road safety, and that the measure may remain in place until there is no longer reason for it.
The new law is primarily a clarification and a restructuring of already existing provisions, and we Social Democrats have nothing to object to regarding this.
With the mobility package, we laid the foundation for healthy competition in the road transport area within the EU, and it is good to have a broad political consensus regarding the government's bill on a more efficient and more legally secure clamping. It is important that Sweden is at the forefront for a sustainable and fair transport sector where the drivers' working conditions and safety on the roads are prioritized.
Patrik Jönsson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Finally, we have passed this important legislation for heavy transports! I want to begin by moving for the approval of the proposition.
Clamping is, in simplified terms, to detain a vehicle with auxiliary equipment that makes further travel impossible. This prevention of continued travel can, for example, occur for traffic safety reasons or if the travel in some other way is in conflict with current regulations. The current legislation, which we Sverigedemokrater have fought to change for many years, has, for example, only permitted the detention of a vehicle for 36 hours, after which one has been required by law to remove the clamping equipment. It is therefore what we are changing with this bill.
Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are now ticking off an election promise by removing the outer time limit, this with the aim that the basis for the clamping shall have been rectified before continued travel can be resumed. The basis can be for traffic safety reasons or economic reasons. It has occurred that companies and drivers have waited out the 36 hours that a measure may last in order to subsequently drive on. We can state that the effect of the clamping in these cases becomes limited, without decisive importance or almost ineffective. In some cases, clamping has also meant that the driver has taken the opportunity to take their statutory weekly rest. Even then, the purpose of the clamping disappears. Furthermore, both the Transport Agency and the Police Authority have made their own follow-ups and compilations in the area which confirm our view.
We now propose, together with the government, a new impoundment law that replaces the old law on measures in case of obstruction of continued travel. In the new law, there are provisions on the prohibition of a vehicle's continued travel to ensure the enforcement of sanction fees in the road traffic area, prevent continued violations of professional legislation, and prevent traffic with drivers who are dangerous to traffic or with defective vehicles.
To ensure that the prohibition is followed, certain items needed for the journey may be seized and the vehicle impounded. The new law contains no time limit for how long the prohibition and measure may apply. The point of the new law is that the impoundment shall remain until a sanction fee has been paid or when there are otherwise no grounds to maintain the prohibition.
As a next step, the Sweden Democrats want strengthened roadside controls. To streamline roadside controls, we want to separate the activity from ordinary police work and place it under a special unit within the police responsible for controls of professional traffic. The unit shall have its own management, decoupled from regions and local police areas, and be managed by its own budget. It can be compared to the Economic Crime Authority or the Swedish Security Service.
Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government show here that we take the issue of fair conditions for professional transport seriously and that we will continue to work to protect all the serious haulage companies affected by competition from unserious hauliers.
A relaxed time limit for clamping should have been implemented a long time ago. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are getting this done.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Mr. Speaker! The situation on Swedish roads must be improved. The competition from illegal foreign hauliers occurs daily and must be removed. These illegal hauliers disregard laws and regulations. They disregard cabotage rules and rules for driving and rest times. They disregard fees and environmental considerations. This also means lost tax revenues in the country and that legal hauliers are competed out by these illegal transports. Not only that: The illegal transport companies also supply the Swedish market with drugs, alcohol, and so on, and they transport stolen goods out of Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! The Alliance government already saw in 2012 that this was a growing problem. The Alliance government then appointed a parliamentary commission which presented sharp proposals. This resulted in a government bill with new legislation on clamping, sanction fees, and client responsibility. It was a good start, but not enough.
Mr. Speaker! During the 2014 election campaign, several Social Democratic representatives were out speaking about that if they only won the election, they would truly introduce "real" clamping, meaning that the clamping would remain until the deficiencies were rectified and fines and fees were paid.
The Social Democrats won the election in 2014, but they still did not introduce any real tachograph rules, only extending the time for tachograph use from 24 hours to 36 hours. This means in practice that after 36 hours, a truck can be uncoupled today, continue its illegal journey, and leave the country. Despite eight years in power, the S-government fails to introduce real tachograph rules despite having promised it in the 2014 election.
One really cannot blame the S representatives and the S government for keeping their election promises, nor for not working particularly quickly. It took time and still turned out wrong with the S government. It was eight lost years in terms of the clamping.
Mr. Speaker! Our current government with Moderates, KD and Liberals and support from the Sweden Democrats has now, in two years, succeeded in introducing real clamping. Finally, one might say. This is a long-awaited decision that can help to stop the illegal commercial traffic on our roads. Thereby, the competitiveness for the legal truck traffic can be strengthened, which is very good. This is a step towards getting the illegal transports off the country's roads.
Mr. Speaker! More needs to be done. Better coordination is still needed between responsible authorities in order to be even more concretely able to stop illegal transports and illegal goods that enter and are transported out of Sweden. That work continues. Illegal trucking shall not nourish the serious crime in Sweden.
I welcome the new law which can help in the work of stopping the illegal transports, which often are the very lifeblood of criminal crime in Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill, and I want to extend a big thank you to all the Tidö parties for a good job that has resulted in us being able to stop and clamp illegal machinery for real. Now the 36-hour time limit is removed, and the clamping can remain until sanction fees are paid and deficiencies are rectified. The new law will enter into force on January 1, 2025.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I can agree with Sten Bergheden on much of what he described in his contribution. We want the same thing. We want to remove crime, fraud, and unserious actors from the transport industry. It is also quite right as the member says, namely that much of organized crime and gang crime can be linked to the transport industry, which becomes the lifeblood in their operations.
Now it is Sten Bergheden with comrades who are responsible for the way forward. The Social Democrats ensured that the issue of order and tidiness on the roads and clamping was truly prioritized. A law was introduced in 2014. It had a time limit of 36 hours, but the possibility existed to extend it. It is important that it actually becomes correct in the debate. It was clamping "for real", one could say.
The new law does not actually mean any dramatically large difference. It can also be important to say.
The European Court of Justice ruled in October that the requirement that foreign vehicles must return to their home country after eight weeks is annulled. This is also part of the mobility package. What do Sten Bergheden and his friends think should be done to actually reinstate the requirement?
Sten Bergheden (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions, Carina Ödebrink.
First and foremost, I can answer the last question. Of course, we will follow the issue closely and see where it lands. Then I would like to correct the member slightly, considering that the bill submitted in 2014 contained a proposal of 24 hours, and then the proposal was adjusted up to 36 hours some years later. That in itself was good.
The Social Democrats were vocal throughout the entire election campaign about the fact that too little time had been allocated for "klampning" (clamping), which I can agree with, but one should clamp "for real", i.e., until the matter was finished. In that case, the Social Democrats have had eight years, and Carina Ödebrink says that this issue has been prioritized. But it is a prioritized issue that one has not managed to resolve in eight years by producing a proposal for "real" clamping. Then we can reflect on how long it takes to handle issues that are not prioritized. It is remarkable that it should take eight years to solve such an issue, considering that we have solved it in two years.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Sten Bergheden perceived this, but the current legislation has a time limit of 36 hours. That time limit can be extended if the needs exist. The time limit cannot be avoided; that is how it is.
Regardless of what decision we make in the chamber, it is important that we embrace that the time limit is removed. But if one cannot follow up on what is being done, the law becomes somewhat toothless. It is an important issue to ensure that the police and customs authorities have the resources to carry out the necessary checks and be out on the roads.
I would have liked to see that Sten Bergheden has an opinion on the issue of the requirement that foreign vehicles must return to their home countries after eight weeks. To follow up on the issue is an answer that fits everything. If we are to ensure order and tidiness, it is important to ensure that the important rules that have already been decided are also implemented.
Let me, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, ask one more question. How do we tackle the crime and the unserious actors? I have myself been out with the traffic police in my county. We Social Democrats have submitted a proposal to establish a professional traffic inspection. Sten Bergheden talks about better and greater coordination. There may certainly be a need for that. We have submitted a concrete proposal for a professional traffic inspection, but we have not received support for it. I would like to hear how Sten Bergheden views this.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats began to push for a professional traffic inspection when they ended up in opposition. They had, in other words, had eight years to introduce a professional traffic inspection, but they did not do so. In opposition, however, it is interesting to put forward the proposal.
I do not believe that we will get better control out on our roads by establishing another agency in Sweden. We have enough of those today. The most important thing is that the agencies that actually have responsibility for the control are coordinated and that we get police out on the roads who actually perform the controls. It is out there that we make a difference, not by establishing a new office and calling it the Professional Traffic Inspection.
I know that the Social Democrats are happy to advocate for new agencies and new bodies to solve tasks, but we want action on the roads, that is to say, to stop the cars that drive around with drugs or disregard laws and regulations, do not pay fees and fines, and thereby increase crime in the country.
I welcome that Carina Ödebrink, Socialdemokraterna, and the entire transport committee are in agreement on the issue, that is to say that it is good that the clamping is introduced for real.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I must agree with what a previous speaker said: Finally!
This issue of clamping, in other words, blocking a vehicle that is illegal, incorrect, or unpaid from driving further, is an extremely important issue. It concerns, among other things, winter time and worn tires, and someone who behaves improperly and causes risks for people on the road.
It is also about unfair competition. With the previous government's tightening from 24 to 36 hours as a principle, those who behaved poorly were effectively given free time. Then one could continue driving without paying, without behaving, and without taking responsibility, which created unfair competition.
It is also the case that the transport sector is the lifeblood. It is the lifeblood for good trade. It is the lifeblood for welfare. It is the lifeblood that allows us all to eat breakfast and buy what we wish to buy. But unfortunately, it is also the lifeblood for the criminal structures.
With clamping as a resource and measure, the Swedish Customs, the police and other authorities will now have significantly better conditions to clamp until the problems that exist are addressed.
As an individual member, one sometimes gets asked if one can make an impact in the Riksdag. I have worked for 16 years in municipal and regional politics, and there, the politics is often very concrete. An issue is raised, and one votes on it in the council and sees that it happens. The Riksdag is not quite as concrete, but sometimes it happens.
We were a few people in the Committee on Transport during the previous parliamentary term who submitted interpellations and asked written questions. We got through an announcement where we followed up on this issue and said that we must remove the upper limit.
I must agree with the previous speaker that the previous government was not very fast. And it is perhaps symptomatic that two parties are currently not in the chamber debating the issue. It could be that one has sometimes not had as much engagement in just this particular issue.
That is why I am extremely pleased that the government has now put forward a proposal for a clarification of the legislation that will have an effect. It will have an effect in the form of safe, fair, and decent rules of the game for the business community. It will increase safety and security on our roads. It will mean safety and equal rules when one actually receives a sanction fee and cannot just sit down and drive away. And it will increase safety regarding crime.
Mr. Speaker! In the debate, it has also been pointed out that new laws are not enough. Someone must also ensure that they are complied with. That is entirely correct. It is a completely reasonable objection and comment. Therefore, I am grateful that this government, in its budget, is increasing the appropriations to the judicial authorities. It is, of course, clear that if we adopt new laws, it must result in new resources and in us actually arresting and prosecuting more people.
Therefore, I am also grateful that this government is expanding, for example, the correctional services. I would, of course, have liked that one also said yes to my most eminent motion regarding a prison in Åmål. But that the government is now acting all the way is positive.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of this particularly important proposition and the proposal in the committee report.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply just as Magnus Jacobsson began to speak about that it is not enough to make decisions on tightened legislation and removed time limits for clamping. The member explained that.
The Social Democratic-led government allocated earmarked funds specifically so that road checks of commercial traffic could be increased, which was also the consequence. There has been quite a large consensus in the Riksdag when it comes to exactly increased resources to the law enforcement authorities and to the police.
The police are among the authorities within the justice system that have received enormously more resources compared to a few years back. But it is clear that one does not always see the delivery of the reinforced resources. And as important as the abolition of the time limit that we are talking about is that there actually is money to monitor this.
I might as well take the opportunity while I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question to Magnus Jacobsson. The European Court of Justice has now overturned the requirement that foreign vehicles must return to their home country after eight weeks. It rejects what the European Parliament has decided. What is Magnus Jacobsson's opinion on that matter?
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the final question. My basic position is that it should be as Parliament has decided. That is my basic position. Now, we do have a legal order within the EU where the court owns its decision-making process. This will, of course, land on the government's table, and I believe we will have to help each other follow it. But the member asked what my opinion is, and my basic position is that I think Parliament was right. I have respect for the legal process within the EU, and we will, of course, have to abide by it.
Regarding the other issues, I think we should acknowledge that we mean well. I perceive that we also do so towards one another, Mr. Speaker. We wish each other well. We wish Sweden well, so I appreciate the tone we have in the Transport Committee.
It is correct that the previous government diverted key funds and locked them and so on. But it is equally correct that the police themselves said: When we have made our measurements and made enough checks, yes, then the traffic police are used at football matches and a bit everywhere.
Here I can say that in some sense I think the Sweden Democrats have a point with their reflection. We have not landed on that as Christian Democrats, but that one breaks out an agency in the way it has been done in Germany is indeed so that such a spillover, if you understand me correctly, does not occur. I belong to those who believe that perhaps we should not have many more agencies, but regardless of that, it is a fact that resources were allocated to a measure but that we still had it described that when one had finally done one's pins, the resource was used for something else.
I am an old guard - 18 years. When I started as a guard, the police were often out patrolling one or two. Today they are out two or three. Obviously, society has become tougher in some parts, but a question also arises: Are we using the resources correctly? That criticism, that we need to become a bit tougher towards our authorities, I also think is important.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I look forward to Magnus Jacobsson's and the government representatives' continued actions in the matter when it comes to precisely the requirement that foreign vehicles must return after eight weeks, for it is an important part when it comes to order and tidiness on the roads.
It is good that we have a consensus and try to be constructive. That is not particularly common in the transport committee or in the other committees today. I wish that we could work towards it becoming more so, because I believe that is what the voters expect of us. They expect that we can sit down together and develop solutions to the problems that people experience in their everyday lives and that we will deal with gang crime and organized crime which hits our country very hard.
It is some kind of extended hand from me. But the consensus is not there. Now it is claimed that there is a majority in the Riksdag, and then one does not need to care about what everyone else thinks or what the opposition thinks. I believe that it is detrimental to democracy and to the voters for whom we have nevertheless received a responsibility.
Finally, I want to bring up something that we have not been heard on. It concerns the establishment of a professional transport inspection. Of course, authorities can cooperate more and better, but if we are to solve the problem on the roads and in the transport industry, even more effective methods need to be found. I would like to hear what Magnus Jacobsson thinks.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Just when it comes to efficiencies in agencies and how we should work, I appreciate that there are different ways into the conversation.
I belong to those within my own party who have argued for a municipal police, and by that, I mean public order police and traffic police. I believe, in fact, that many municipalities in Sweden would prioritize having a municipal police, roughly like the municipal associations one has within the rescue services. Then one could know that the police will come to Munkedal when one calls or that they will come to places outside the large urban area. I have not been heard in my party, but conversations are still held about how we create the security that the police will come when one calls and review when it should be reviewed.
I want to be clear and say that I appreciate that this type of ideas come forward. My approach is to try to read and see what is being said, what it boils down to, and what is desired. It is not a given that I will share the view regarding a new agency.
I come from the Committee on Employment, where for two years I tried to highlight that for every individual accident, one should use the authority we already have and form a larger commission. Most accidents that occur in workplaces are actually within the transport sector or the construction sector. If we used the authorities we have, we would also go much further. I am therefore not entirely sure that I want to go a path that involves an additional authority that will be forced to cooperate with other authorities.
Think if we could use our safety representatives and the authorities we have much more, and think if we could achieve better coordination. Then I believe we will reach what I perceive that we actually desire: a safe and secure transport sector that gets rid of crime and benefits the serious companies.
Helena Gellerman (L)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating TU4 A more efficient and more legally secure clamping.
When it comes to this bill, which is on the Riksdag's table, I can only express myself in one way: Finally! It is somewhat interesting that that feeling exists among all the parties that are now participating in the government cooperation that includes the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna. Everyone has expressed the same feeling.
Since I entered the Riksdag in 2018, we have discussed the impounding of vehicles on the road when transport, for various reasons, is not to be allowed to continue on Swedish roads. One of the main reasons for the need for impounding is that sanction fees are difficult to collect abroad.
The clamping of vehicles can be decided for various reasons. One reason can be that sanction fees have been issued. Another can be to prevent violations of the professional transport legislation. However, it is perhaps primarily about preventing traffic-dangerous drivers and deficient vehicles. The Government proposes no changes regarding the reasons for being able to clamp a vehicle.
Mr. Speaker! What we have primarily discussed in this chamber over the years is how long one can be detained in a vehicle. If the vehicle is traffic-dangerous, it has been possible since 2015 to be detained until the defect is rectified – that is a road safety issue. For other reasons, for example unpaid sanction fees, it concerned 24 hours from the year 2015, which meant that in many cases the driver simply waited for 24 hours and then drove on. During the last parliamentary term, this was increased to 36 hours. It could, however, be observed that neither this had any major effect – the drivers waited out the time and then drove on.
Now the government is taking action on the problem. With this bill, the vehicle will remain clamped until the problem is resolved, either by the payment of a down payment on the sanction fee or because there are no grounds to maintain the ban.
We are simultaneously creating a framework law - the new clamping law - where other special laws specify the reasons for clamping a vehicle. There is no point in deciding on measures if the measures have no effect. With this decision and this proposition, they will have it.
The problems have primarily concerned foreign vehicles. With this measure against unserious drivers, we take another step towards providing the trucking industry with competition-neutral rules of the game on the Swedish market.
Furthermore, the circle of those who can decide on clamping is being expanded. Today, it is police officers within the Swedish Police Authority and Customs who can decide on clamping, but now the circle is expanded to also include civilian vehicle inspectors within the traffic police. It is often they who discover the defects when they are out inspecting vehicles and meeting drivers on the roads. Thus, we have placed the decision where the competence lies, which is a very important rule that the Liberals stand behind.
Mr. Speaker! The new clamping law and the legislative amendments are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2025.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision. It is very good that this is finally being introduced.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.