New Customs Powers Act

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! This is the Committee on Taxation's report 2 of the various reports coming in this autumn. It concerns the Customs Authority Act. To briefly explain what it is about for those listening, I thought I would briefly go through what it is we are to decide on today, Madam Speaker.

What is in the report, which is based on a proposition, is simply proposals to give the customs officers new tools to carry out their work in a more efficient way. It is also about making the legislation uniform and consolidated. It facilitates the customs officers' ability to carry out their work in a way that we as a society can expect.

It is about the customs officers' right to use force in more situations. It may sound unpleasant, but it is unfortunately perhaps necessary given the situation and the social development we have today. It is about customs officers being granted an expanded right to stop vehicles. It is about customs officers being given expanded opportunities to conduct protective searches.

It is about customs officers being given the right to remove persons disturbing the peace from a checkpoint. When they are to carry out their work, they are today given greater powers to create an opportunity to do so in a reasonable manner.

It is about customs officers being allowed to open shipments in more cases than today. Crime is constantly finding new ways. In that case, it is important that the customs officers' powers follow suit so that the new situation that arises can be handled.

It is about customs officers being allowed to close off areas at the inner border. It is also an opportunity for customs officers to expand their area of operation in order to fulfill their duties.

It is about customs officials being given a greater opportunity to lead preliminary investigations. It is a matter of competence, as the person who truly knows the issues is given an opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation and thereby increase the quality of the work.

It is about customs prosecutors being allowed to bring charges for more crimes. It is in the same line. It is about customs officers being given expanded opportunities to assist prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies.

It may sound a bit bureaucratic. But it is something that in reality truly makes the customs service simply stronger in its work against crime.

It is about Customs getting increased opportunities for audits without having to be informed about the audit in advance. That may sound reasonable. Customs is also given increased access to booking data.

There is a number of proposals in the bill that we handle in the committee report which simply increase the Customs' capabilities. In a new social situation where crime is increasingly well-organized and takes on new forms, the Swedish Customs gets greater opportunities to fulfill its mission.

When it comes to this bill, there are no reservations in the chamber. There are no motions that have been written in connection with the bill. Those who are listening can reflect a little on what it stands for.

I can tell those who are listening that it means that the entire Riksdag stands behind the proposal. In the Riksdag, we are sometimes in agreement. We can in the Riksdag have different views on different issues. But when it comes to this proposal, we are in complete agreement.

For me as a Social Democrat, it is very pleasant to feel that we are in complete agreement on Social Democratic policy. It is a Social Democratic proposal from start to finish. It was the Social Democratic government that gave the investigator the task of investigating that which is the basis for the entire legislation.

When eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind strong social democratic legislation, it is naturally pleasing for me as a social democrat. It is pleasing for the Swedish people, and it is naturally pleasing for the customs officers who receive the new tools.

It is very pleasing for the country, for the law enforcement authorities, and ultimately for the individual citizen that Social Democratic legislation also takes effect here today. When we now probably gather at 16:00 for a vote and everyone stands behind Social Democratic policy, it feels secure and good.

What, however, does not feel quite as secure and good, Madam Speaker, is that the Social Democratic government that commissioned the investigation and was also prepared to implement the proposal unfortunately had to hand over to a government that is not quite as capable of taking action, if I may put it diplomatically. That is what one must say from the rostrum of the Riksdag, Madam Speaker.

It is a government that perhaps can be called the laziest government in modern times. It is a government that simply does not get things done. It is a government that also does not finance activities that are necessary. That makes me, as a social democrat, concerned. That is also why we social democrats have a special statement.

I can tell those listening to the debate that with a special statement, one does not wish to submit a counterproposal. It is clear that we do not submit counterproposals to our own proposals. It is a Social Democratic proposal that we are to vote on today.

We still want to include and point out that there are problems with the government's way of handling a good proposal. One is lack of initiative, and the other is that one has been weak regarding the financing.

The government we have today is very quick to implement tax cuts for rich men. But it is very poor at financing socially important activities. This is what we want to have said in our special statement.

The second thing that bothers me a little as a social democrat and concerned citizen is that this very important legislation, Madam Speaker, enters into force on November 7, 2024, when it could have entered into force on November 7, 2022.

Unfortunately, due to the change of government, we have had to wait for two years to implement necessary and important legislation. It is perhaps not something to dwell on today, as there are only a few weeks left until the law comes into force. But it is still a reminder, Madam Speaker, of something that it is important to bring to the attention of Sweden's citizens.

This is a government that drags its feet when it comes to activities of societal importance, such as giving customs officers additional powers to carry out their important mission, and which waits for two years to implement legislation that is investigated and ready.

There is no defense for the lack of competence. We can only state that the sitting government today is indeed pushing through Social Democratic policies, and we thank them for that. But it is two years too late, and we are still concerned about the financing.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country to live in in many ways. We who live here have much to be happy and proud of. But obviously, not everything is perfect. One thing that is not perfect is the serious crime that has plagued our country for many years. Unscrupulous gangs fill their pockets through extortion, fraud, and drug sales. They do not hesitate to shoot or to detonate explosives in the middle of ordinary honest people to defend their clandestine activities and the income from them.

The Swedish people have had enough of these thugs and bandits. The promise to crack down hard on these was one of the main reasons why the Swedish people chose a new government in 2022.

Since the election, we Sverigedemokrater and our Tidö colleagues have worked hard to fulfill our promises to the Swedish people. We have tightened the penalties for drug offenses, robbery, extortion, and a number of other crimes. We have allocated greater economic resources to customs, police, and courts, and we have given the police expanded powers so that they can do their work.

An example of this is the law on secret coercive measures. The police report that they were only able to arrest 30 criminals between October 2023 and February 2024 thanks to the new law. In several cases, they were also able to seize weapons, drugs, and black money in the same period.

Another example is the residency ban. It has, among other things, been tested in the problem area Rågsved centrum in southern Stockholm. The result has been good. When the newspaper Expressen visited the area and spoke with business owners and strollers, these witnessed a marked difference. The gang that had openly dealt drugs was gone. Old regular customers dared to return to cafes and restaurants. "It is 100 percent calmer," said an interviewed business owner.

Madam Speaker! During the past two years, the Sweden Democrats and the other Tidö parties have carried out the largest offensive against organized crime in modern Sweden's history. But we are far from finished.

Today we are here to discuss the next step in our fight against criminal gangs and other lawbreakers: the new customs powers act. This means, among other things, that customs officers are granted the right to use force in more situations, an expanded right to stop vehicles, and increased opportunities to conduct protective searches in control activities. Customs officers are granted the right to remove disorderly persons from a control site. They are granted the right to open shipments in more cases than today, they are granted the right to close off areas at the inner border, and they are granted greater opportunities to lead investigations.

With these powers, the customs service is now given better conditions than ever to detect and stop smugglers. It cannot be emphasized enough how important this is. Every pistol and grenade and every package of narcotics that is stopped at the border strikes at the gangs' income and violence capital. Every gang member who is arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for smuggling offenses is one less who can spread fear and insecurity in society and one less who can lure naive youths into the path of crime.

Madam Speaker! During the last two years, we have made it significantly harder to be a criminal in Sweden. Now we are making it even harder.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Erik Hellsborn speaks warmly for Social Democratic policy here in the chamber. I thank him for that. However, I intend to ask two questions to Erik Hellsborn.

If this legislation is good, important and effective, which we agree on, how can it then be that Erik Hellsborn, who belongs to the government support, has contributed to delaying this legislation for two years? That is the one question, which is very simple and concrete. I hope for an answer.

The second question concerns the fact that Erik Hellsborn spoke about allocating funds to the customs. A year ago, Erik Hellsborn voted no to allocating funds to the customs. We Social Democrats proposed that we in this chamber should allocate more funds to the customs. At that time, Erik Hellsborn chose to press the no button. He did not want to support a proposal that gave the customs more funds. Why did Erik Hellsborn vote no to more funds for the customs?

It is two simple and important questions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must admit that I find it difficult to recognize myself in the description of reality that the member paints. The member represents the Social Democrats, the party that sat in government for eight years before the Tidö agreement took over. One had eight years to carry out what one says one wants to do now. The question is why one did not do this.

What has happened over the last two years is that the Customs has received more money than ever. They are growing; they are hiring more people. Through this legislation, they have received better tools, greater powers, and better equipment. Customs stands stronger today than ever before. We should be proud of that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Erik Hellsborn says that he finds it difficult to recognize reality. I understand that. That is perhaps also why I did not receive an answer to my two simple and very clear questions. I shall make a new attempt.

The Social Democratic government had investigated the issue and had a legislative proposal ready. If we had been allowed to stay, we could have implemented it two years ago. Erik Hellsborn has contributed to postponing this legislation for two years, and Erik Hellsborn says that he is proud of it. What is Erik Hellsborn's pride based on?

My first question is: Why was the legislation postponed for two years?

The second question is: Why did Erik Hellsborn contribute to not giving the customs more funds? Why did Erik Hellsborn stop more money to the customs? Why did Erik Hellsborn prevent the customs officers from getting effective tools? It is that reality that Erik Hellsborn has a bit of difficulty orienting himself in.

Madam Speaker! Honored audience! I still think these are very simple questions to answer. Why wait for two years? Why stop the money? Can we get an answer to that?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are some rather strong hints and accusations here. The Social Democrats, as said, had power for eight years. One had eight years to implement what you think should have been implemented two years ago. They did not do that.

Under the sitting right-wing government, the customs have more money than they had under the Social Democrats' rule, they have greater powers than they had under the Social Democrats' rule and they have better tools than under the Social Democrats' rule. The development is therefore going in the right direction under our rule, not under Social Democratic rule.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie Nicholson (M)

Madam Speaker! My grandmother once got caught at customs. I say once, but it is not impossible that it happened several times. After the charter trips to Mallorca, there were probably a few bottles of liqueur and perhaps even a little cognac in the luggage, certainly a bit too much. It resulted in a fine for my grandmother, at least.

But it was a long time ago. A time after that we joined the EU, and old ladies' liqueurs were no longer counted as smuggling in the same way. The border towards Europe became an internal border. People came, and people left. But then the world began to change. Sweden perhaps even changed a little more.

In 2004, one could read in a press release from Tullverket that while the seizures were becoming larger, they were also becoming fewer. That year, 488 kilos of cannabis and 189 kilos of amphetamine were seized. By then, the Persson government had nevertheless cut back significantly on customs activities. In just one year, 370 positions had disappeared, and about ten stations had been forced to close.

In 2024, the situation is very different. Last year, Tullverket was able to stop 11 tons of narcotics from being brought into Sweden, almost double the amount from 2022. Never before has so much cannabis been stopped at customs. The seizures of cocaine and heroin are also increasing. Despite that, we know that the seizures only constitute a fraction of the narcotics that actually enter Sweden.

The Swedish Customs' mission is much broader than just stopping illegal goods. But in the fight against organized crime, they stand on the absolute front line.

Today we are to make a decision on a new customs powers act. It is a measure to consolidate and clarify the legislation that customs officers already work under. Whenever we legislate on powers used against individuals, it is of extra importance that it is clear, consistent, and easy to apply. Otherwise, there is a great risk that individuals will be affected by incorrect decisions and that those who are to apply the regulations do so with uncertainty, which in turn leads to less effective control activities and crime fighting.

The investigation that forms the basis for the new, unified customs powers act was initiated in 2021. But thanks to the announcements that the Moderaterna, together with the other Tidö parties, pushed through during the previous parliamentary term, it is not just about a unifying legislation but also about an expansion of the customs officers' powers.

Some time ago, I visited the Customs Service in Karlshamn and asked what could be improved or changed in the legislation to make their work easier and better. They then described a fairly common situation. They have received a tip about a vehicle that may have drugs or perhaps illegal firearms hidden in the cargo. They take the vehicle in for inspection, and while it is being inspected, the driver is shown to a waiting room. A customs officer explained to me that the moment when they ask the driver to step out and temporarily leave the vehicle may be the most risky situation they have in their work.

He said: "I don't know if this person has weapons with him. I don't know what consequences it entails for him if the cargo doesn't arrive. I don't know if this is a desperate person and I am not allowed to search him to ensure that he is not carrying anything that he can use to harm me."

It feels a bit extra good today, Madam Speaker, that we are now going to approve new powers to conduct body searches for protection and identification purposes, both during an arrest and in connection with certain checks and interrogations.

The Customs Authority Act now also gives our customs officers a general right to use force in the performance of their duties, when other means are insufficient and if it is justifiable in view of the circumstances. Examples of such occasions are when the officers are met with violence or threats of violence, when someone who is to be detained tries to escape or resists, or in order to remove a person from a space. At the external border, there is no difference from today, but at the internal border or at point tax control, we take a significant step to secure our customs officers.

Madam Speaker! Safety is what increased powers are about – safety for the customs officer whose work is both more important and more risky than ever before. It means safety for you, for me, and for all citizens who are protected when we strike back against the gangs' economy and access to illegal weapons.

I am pleased that we stand politically united today behind the government's proposal for a new customs authority act and move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Due to a lack of imagination, I intended to ask the same questions to Marie Nicholson as I asked to Erik Hellsborn, because I did not receive any answers from him.

Now Marie Nicholson made a small attempt to answer one of the questions, namely why the government has held back for two years. I perceived it, at least, as an attempt to answer the question. She said that it was due to the supplementary directive that was submitted on 30 March 2023. This sounds a bit strange, and Marie Nicholson could elaborate on how the supplementary directive prevented the government from carrying out the investigation that was actually carried out and was completed in September 2022. Why was it an obstacle for the government?

The supplementary directive was about the investigator providing proposals on how the export of stolen goods can be criminalized regardless of the position on the merits. There was nothing at all in the supplementary directive that prevented the government from implementing the already investigated proposals.

One should also be somewhat careful and read the report that we are debating today. Let me read out what it is we are to make decisions on so that we know it: "The Customs Authority Investigation submitted in September 2022 the sub-report Customs Authority's Legal Powers in a New Era (SOU 2022:48). The report deals with the assignments in the investigation directives from April 29, 2021. The report has been subject to consultation."

In this bill, the government addresses the committee's proposals.

In what we are to decide on today, it says in the text, in black and white, that what we are dealing with today is what was investigated and submitted in September 2022. It is this that we are to make a decision on. Why did it take two years, Marie Nicholson?

We can also take that with the money while we are at it. Furthermore, Erik Hellsborn claimed that the customs service has received a lot of new tools during these two years. Can Marie Nicholson perhaps list what these new tools are?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie Nicholson (M)

Madam Speaker! The law we have before us and which we shall decide on today is a unifying piece of legislation, but it also concerns increased powers. In the mandate given in 2021, these increased powers were not included.

One might ask why the Social Democrats waited until 2021, a year before the election, to give a mandate. One should always carry a bit of humility regarding the fact that an election might not go one's own way. Why not do this earlier? And why did you vote against the motion on increased powers that was submitted? You also did not stand behind the Riksdag's announcement that the Swedish Customs Service's powers should be adapted to reality.

When a ship arrives loaded at the port of Gothenburg, 23,000 containers arrive. They are to be unloaded and sent further in a hurry. It goes without saying that it is not possible to check even a fraction of them. Customs' primary tool is therefore intelligence on deviations and cooperation with other authorities, above all with the police. It is absolutely crucial that we strengthen the entire chain. Tullverket has therefore received the reinforcement that has been demanded regarding the work against criminal economy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! As the attentive may note, I did not receive an answer to my questions. I may not receive them in the future either, but I can continue to pose them to the other members during the course of the debate.

It is still exciting to hear about Marie Nicholson's view on government work. She thinks it is strange that a sitting government, one year before an election, gives an inquiry directives to carry out important legislation. If Marie Nicholson thinks that and at the same time represents the current government, it means that we can expect that the paralyzed government currently in power will, in humility before the voters, continue not to present any proposals to solve important societal problems.

I think this is exciting information for the voters. Marie Nicholson argues, then, that it is reasonable for a government not to submit any investigation directives, not to work on social problems, and not to work all the way to the finish. We Social Democrats do not think so. We work on the voters' behalf all the way to the finish, all the time and throughout the entire mandate period. Then, of course, we hope for renewed confidence.

We do not stop two years before an election and cease to issue investigation mandates or combat societal problems. We always combat societal problems every day and every time we have the power of government, every time we have the opportunity to submit legislative proposals and every time we get to vote in this chamber.

The last time we discussed the budget, we had added more funds to Tullverket. Despite being in opposition, we fight to solve societal problems. We do it in opposition, and we do it when we have the power of government. We do it all the time. But Marie Nicholson represents a government that thinks that, in humility before the voters, one should not try to combat societal problems because there are only two years left until the election. I think that is a strange attitude toward politics. It might be convenient, but it is not inspiring confidence.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie Nicholson (M)

Madam Speaker! The question I asked Patrik Björck, to which I also did not receive an answer, was why it took so long, until 2021, to issue a mandate of such importance regarding something that had been pointed out as necessary for several years.

As I said, Tullverket has received the reinforcement that was demanded when it comes to criminal economy. In addition, we have funds for Försäkringskassan, Bolagsverket, Skatteverket, and Kronofogdemyndigheten to strengthen the work against criminal economy. We have funds for a new financial intelligence center and for strengthened social prevention work. The judiciary's appropriation in this budget goes from 37 to 51.9 billion kronor, and Kriminalvården's goes from 14.1 to 26 billion kronor - not to mention all the legislation that my colleague Erik Hellsborn just pushed through and which is being rolled out in the area to help the police and other authorities in their work against gang crime.

This is legislation that the Social Democrats had eight years to get in place but failed. This mission is prioritized, and it really makes a difference who is in power.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! There are those who believe that politics is about getting things in order and solving problems. Yes, that can naturally be the case sometimes. But the primary task of politics is not to create problems, to stay one step ahead. It is about creating the conditions for us human beings to live a good life in freedom where we can make our own decisions.

But politics often fails to stay one step ahead. This applies to the climate, for example. Politics around the world has for decades grossly failed to create instruments that reduce carbon emissions. We have failed to avoid creating problems for ourselves and future generations. In Sweden, it is also actually going in the wrong direction today, which is extra poignant, as it was a Swede, Svante Arrhenius, who 128 years ago was the first to describe the connection between carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect.

Madam Speaker! The customs authority act that is now on the Riksdag's table ready for a decision could, however, be described as being one step ahead. It is one of the reasons why we in the Center Party express our approval. We would indeed like to see that we develop upwards and forwards and at the same time strengthen ourselves as a civilized society and move away from polarization.

When we in the Center Party take a position on new legislative proposals or ourselves put forward new political initiatives, we are careful about balance points. We oppose laws that restrict privacy and personal freedom and actually set us back in development.

Most recently we had chat control, admittedly with little use for the possibility of accessing heinous crimes and a built-in powerful and general privacy-violating function. So we are not developing a civilized society. Just around the corner we also have a national begging ban, which makes it illegal to be poor and ask for help. It is actually not wise that one should even investigate that matter in Sweden. In both of these cases, we must take a stand.

Regarding the Customs Authority Act, it is simpler. That law is for the benefit of the public without restricting the freedom of the great majority.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Customs Service calculates its seizures of narcotics and doping agents as social benefit. This is done according to a model that calculates how much the society's costs are reduced because the Swedish Customs Service's seizures prevent narcotics and doping agents from entering society. This includes, among other things, avoided costs for healthcare and social interventions. In the first half of this year, the social benefit was 5.8 billion kronor. Over a year, this therefore amounts to just under 12 billion.

Is 12 billion a lot? We can compare with school, for example. In its budget bill, the Government has signaled a supplement of approximately 2.8 billion to school for 2025. Let's say that is significantly less than what the Center Party invests in Swedish school - it still provides perspective.

What is frightening is not what we know about the social cost that is avoided through the customs' seizures, but the hidden figures, that which we cannot grasp. We do not know how large the social cost is for the illegal, for the smuggling of cash and goods. But one thing we know: Without an effective and legally sound customs operation, enormous national values would be seriously threatened—both economic and monetary values as well as human values, both money and our personal safety. Without an effective and legally sound customs operation, the very foundation for a functioning trade would be compromised. Gross organized crime would be given free rein.

Madam Speaker! Now a united Riksdag is ready to take the next step for Swedish customs operations and make a decision on a new law: the Customs Powers Act. We do this for two reasons. Firstly, we see a need to consolidate legal prerequisites in a new law to simplify things for customs and avoid interpretations and gaps in the legislation that de facto have hindered customs operations; secondly, we see that customs needs a number of reinforced powers, not least in light of the severe organized crime with its substantial capital of violence.

Gross organized crime constitutes economic empires, or illegal corporate groups if you will. The deadly violence is not the core. It is the economy that is the core, an economy that is also most often controlled from abroad. Therefore, it is of great importance that the customs' work can be intensified, so that economic flows of goods and cash are choked. Customs simply needs expanded powers in these times.

The law is for the public good. We in Centerpartiet are positive towards the new law, the Customs Authority Act, and move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats put human dignity, security, and justice in the foreground. When we today face decisions regarding a regulation for Tullverket, it is fundamentally about safeguarding the society where every human being should be able to live in security and freedom. We want to see a society where law and order prevail and where the state has the tools needed to protect inhabitants and combat crime.

Unfortunately, crime more and more frequently challenges our borders. Smuggling of weapons, drugs, and illegal goods threatens our children's future and undermines our social structure. We must act. Therefore, we in Kristdemokrater stand behind the government's proposal to give Tullverket expanded powers. It is about protecting our country and our inhabitants.

Madam Speaker! In the Christian Democrats' social construction, we emphasize the importance of having strong, clear, and just authorities that act based on clear laws and at the same time are sufficiently equipped to maintain law and order in an effective manner. For us, it is about upholding the state's responsibility to protect its inhabitants. A strong state can intervene when society's safety is threatened. Therefore, we support the proposal to give customs officers the right to use force in more situations, naturally in strictly controlled and proportionate forms.

The officials at the customs are on the front line in the fight against the criminal economy. It is therefore important that they can search for weapons and drugs without simultaneously fearing for their lives. In the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and narcotics, it can involve large amounts, and those who smuggle therefore often ensure that they secure a monopoly on violence. It is not reasonable that a customs official in these situations should not have the right to control persons in the search for weapons and other dangerous objects.

The possibility for customs officers to use force in more situations than today is not something we decide on lightly. But it is a necessary measure to ensure that customs officers have the tools they need to handle threatening situations.

Madam Speaker! In certain situations where threats of violence or actual situations of violence arise, it is crucial that customs officers can act immediately. If their powers are limited, it can mean that both innocent people and the customs personnel themselves are exposed to risks. Therefore, it is important that they can intervene forcefully immediately, when so required.

It is also important to remember that legal certainty and safety go hand in hand. It is through clear and uniform legislation that we can ensure that the use of violence always occurs under strictly regulated circumstances and in proportion to the threat. It is not about giving free rein, but about giving the authorities the necessary tools to protect the common good and maintain the order that society is built upon.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats also support the proposal to give customs officers extended rights to stop vehicles and carry out inspections. Smuggling and illegal activity is a threat not only to our justice system but also to the safety and security of our children and youth. The Swedish Customs Service stands on the front line when it comes to preventing illegal goods such as weapons, drugs, and dangerous products from entering the country. It is therefore necessary that customs officers are given the powers required to effectively be able to stop and inspect vehicles suspected of being involved in illegal activity.

We Christian Democrats see this expanded right as an important step in the fight against organized crime, which to an ever-increasing extent uses transport to bring illegal weapons into Sweden. Without the possibility to quickly and effectively stop and control vehicles, we risk letting these activities flourish, which threatens both public safety and the state's ability to maintain law and order.

The expanded powers are also a matter of preventive work. Through more and better controls, the Swedish Customs can deter smuggling and make it harder for criminals to carry out their plans.

If we make it known that the risk of being stopped and controlled is high, we can reduce the incentives for criminals to try to smuggle dangerous goods into the country. It sends a signal to society that we stand firm in defending our borders and protecting our citizens from harmful activities.

This proposal is also an important tool for protecting the economy. Smuggling does not only lead to increased societal costs in the form of crime and abuse, but it also means a setback for legal companies and taxpayers. By strengthening the Customs Service's powers, we can also protect the Swedish market from illegal competition, where goods are brought in without customs duties and fees being paid. It strengthens our domestic economy and ensures that we maintain fair conditions for all entrepreneurs.

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, this proposal is about more than technical adjustments. It is about creating a safer and more law-abiding Sweden. We want everyone to be able to feel safe both in their homes and on the streets, and we believe that a strong and effective customs service is an important protection for society.

Let us now together take this step to strengthen the safety and the rule of law in our society!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! For me, as an alumnus of the Committee on Taxation, it is always rewarding to be able to come and debate the committee's matters. It was ten years ago that I became a member of the Committee on Taxation, and I sat there until the 2018 election. Even back then, discussions were held regarding how the Swedish Customs Service's capacity could be strengthened in various ways. Then it took time, as mentioned in the debate, until 2021 before this investigation was commissioned. Additional directives have also been given in two rounds before we gathered here today. Sometimes things take longer than one had hoped. But it is still good to be able to conclude with good reforms.

I am now a member of the Committee on Justice, but the Swedish Customs Service and the Committee on Taxation have, over time, received ever greater law enforcement responsibilities. The Swedish Customs Service is still an agency that falls under the Ministry of Finance and belongs to the Committee on Taxation. One still collects taxes, and one deals with fiscal issues. But one has, over time, received more and more responsibility also for law enforcement.

I think this legislation is good. More powers are given to Tullverket. They have been lined up earlier during the debate. It concerns, among other things, the ability to stop means of transport, the possibility of using force when justified, and the possibility of searching.

I have said it before, and I can say it again in connection with our discussion of this: I think that EU membership and the EU as an organization is an absolutely excellent and fantastic thing. I am very happy that Sweden is a member together with 26 other states. It has been very beneficial and is also going to be so for our country. There is very much that is positive with this cooperation, not least the free movement for people and flows of goods.

But I think that when we make decisions about such new legislation, we should also remember how it was in connection with Sweden becoming a member on January 1, 1995. That was before the undersigned was active in politics – I was probably in middle school at that time. But there were many, both parties and politicians, who warned about the downsides of membership, including that the possibility of controlling stolen goods, drugs, weapons, and so on would decrease drastically. It was cut enormously at the Swedish Customs in connection with the EU entry, and the legislation was changed quickly. I believe, Madam Speaker, that this has meant that we have had a number of problems since then. I believe, if one is to be wise in hindsight, that it would have been possible to enter the EU in the 90s without relinquishing control in the way that we actually did.

I will also say, Madam Speaker, that I have hopes in light of the new laws that we get in place. This is one example, but there are others as well. It concerns traffic surveillance in border areas. This, together with the new customs powers and so on, makes me hope that the government can soon move away from the temporary internal border controls that we have had for travelers from Denmark to Sweden since November 2015. It is high time that we can find permanent systems where we have sufficient control without the temporary internal border controls, which cause so much disorder for our border commuters.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report, Madam Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! One of the advantages of being the last speaker is that one gets to listen to what the other parties think and feel about the issue, and that is interesting. I am pleased that the government has now presented a proposal for a new law that is so good that even the Social Democrats are standing and praising it.

Madam Speaker! Organized crime in Sweden is still a major problem, not only for the citizens' safety but also for society's development. Organized crime is becoming, as we know, increasingly a threat to the system. And we see how criminal actors find new ways to carry out their criminality.

With that situation, the customs service has an important role in crime fighting today, but in order to be an effective and hungry authority, as it is, it also requires that it has the right means and the right legislation. It is good that Tullverket and its officials now receive a new law where all of their powers are gathered and where parts of the existing customs act are moved there.

Legislation that is complicated and unclear makes it cumbersome for the officials who are to work with it, and not infrequently the measures become less effective and, in the worst case, also less legally secure. A law must be clear and easy to interpret. Now, therefore, the customs service receives such a law, the new Customs Powers Act. It is a law that will make the customs officers' work simpler, more efficient, and safer.

Madam Speaker! Let me mention some of the new powers that the customs officers will receive. A customs officer will be able to stop a vehicle if someone who has committed a crime that the customs officer has the right to intervene against is located in that vehicle. One may also stop the vehicle if one needs to check the vehicle itself or what is in the vehicle, if there is support in law to do so.

A body search will be conducted in order to identify someone or to protect oneself or a third party. This means that if the customs officer is to arrest, detain, or remove someone, the customs officer may conduct a body search to search for weapons or other dangerous objects. The same applies if the person to be checked must be escorted or moved to another checkpoint, one of the customs' premises, or a vehicle. Even then, the customs officer may conduct a body search of that person to search for weapons or other dangerous objects.

In a situation where the customs officer arrests, detains, or removes someone, the customs officer may also conduct a body search to search for identification - in order to be able to establish the identity.

Furthermore, in the new customs act, customs officers are given a clearer right to use force. This is something that some usually object to, because they do not really know what force is.

This applies especially if the official is met with violence or if force needs to be used in order to carry out a service action. This will lead to the customs being able to carry out controls at so-called control points much better and more safely. If a person disturbs or obstructs the official during the control, that person can be refused entry or removed. It is precisely the act of refusal and removal that falls under the concept of force.

It will also become easier for customs to inspect packages and letters and in that way search for goods and items that, for various reasons, should not enter the country. The law also contains provisions that the transport companies are obliged to detain a shipment for six hours so that the inspection can be carried out. It is very strange that this has not existed previously.

Another good thing we heard someone mention earlier is that if there is a decision on a customs audit and it is to be executed, it no longer needs to be notified in advance. Customs prosecutors are also to a greater extent allowed to initiate and lead investigations into more crimes.

Madam Speaker! We Liberals, as is well known, like order and tidiness and always welcome new, good and effective legislation. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal on the new Customs Authority Act.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunate circumstances mean that we are having this debate today, while the Customs Service's advisory board has a meeting at Arlanda which I therefore unfortunately cannot attend.

Martin Melin has sat in the Customs Authority's oversight council together with me. Now he has left that position to a party colleague, but until now he has, therefore, sat in the Customs Authority's oversight council. Marie Nicholson also sits in the Customs Authority's oversight council, whom I just debated with. I then asked Marie Nicholson some questions that I did not receive answers to.

I therefore thought that Martin Melin, who has represented his party in these issues in the Committee on Taxation until now and has also sat on the Swedish Customs Service's oversight council, should have the opportunity to answer the questions that I did not receive answers to earlier. I will therefore try to be clear and give Martin Melin a fair chance to answer.

Why has it taken two years to implement this legislation, which was prepared by the previous government? What are the reasons? Marie Nicholson made an attempt and complicated things with the additional directives - they have nothing to do with this. We can agree on that. This investigation could have been carried out earlier, independent of those. I have also read what is stated in the report, so I will not spend time on that. I would like to have a good answer to that question.

Since then, some strange information has emerged here in the debate that the sitting government has introduced a lot of new legislation that has given Tullverket new tools. Which legislation then?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not usually like to answer a question by asking a question myself. But now I am doing so, and I shall also provide an answer.

I would actually like to ask the member the same question when it comes to introducing new effective legislation for the Swedish Customs: Why didn't the Social Democrats do that in 2005, when a certain Johan Pehrson stood in this speaker's chair and waved his arms and desperately tried to explain that the Customs needed more funds and better tools? Why wasn't it done already in 2005? I could counter with that, and I do so as well. The member does not need to answer that, however, because the member was not responsible for this at the time.

The previous government did well by commissioning an investigation, and the investigator produced a solid basis for the new customs authority act that we are debating today. Thank you for that, the Social Democratic government! You did a great job.

I do not know why it was not introduced already in 2022. I was not involved in that decision. Had I been allowed to decide, it would have been introduced already in 2005. I therefore cannot answer that. That question probably has to be asked to the relevant minister or to someone even higher up. I would have gladly seen that it had been introduced already in 2022.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! A big thank you to Martin Melin who nevertheless answers a simple question in an honorable way. All credit to Martin Melin for that!

Then I almost get a little full of laughter when Martin Melin describes his party colleague's speaking style here in the chamber. I can really see Johan Pehrson in front of me waving his arms and being a bit loud-voiced and so on.

The problem with Johan Pehrson is well, it is what he can do. The concern with Johan Pehrson is that now he sits in the government as a minister and gets nothing done. Johan Pehrson is a very good picture of this government's paralysis of action, because it is actually a minister who has done nothing during his entire time in the government.

No, I did not sit in the Riksdag in 2005, but I can see it before me – a very vivid picture of Johan Pehrson waving his arms, gesturing, chuckling, and roaring. It is clear that it would have been good if the legislation had come in 2005, but I want to thank Martin Melin again, who is the only member representing the government who can actually answer the question.

I did, however, have one more question. It has emerged from the government base that during these two years, other legislation has crept in which has given Tullverket new tools and powers in the meantime. Since Martin Melin sits on Tullverket's oversight council and has sat on the tax committee until now, perhaps Martin Melin can inform us here in the chamber as to which legislation is being pointed to. Since Martin Melin was honest enough to answer my first question, I would also like an answer to my second.

New customs powers act

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! If we talk about new legislation up until the new Customs Authority Act being presented today, I do not know off the top of my head what changes have occurred in the Customs Act during the last 20 years. I assume that changes have occurred in the Customs Act during these years, but I cannot off the top of my head answer what they are.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)