Point tax and customs duty

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is finally time to debate the Committee on Taxation's report 14, which concerns excise duties and customs.

Let me begin with the excise taxes. This is an area with a rather diverse flora of taxes that have been raised in nearly 70 different petitions. It concerns the taxes on electricity, fuel, vehicles, chemicals, alcohol, tobacco, air travel, waste and – of course – plastic bags.

But even if the content of the taxes has a wide spread, there is at least one thing that unites the Sverigedemokraternas and the other bourgeois parties' position and stance towards the taxes that we are to debate here today: They shall either be abolished in their entirety or be reduced in some way.

Naturally, there is no intrinsic value in having a tax, it must have a purpose. Excise taxes exist because they are intended to have a regulatory effect, but it cannot be ignored that they are also an important source of income for the state treasury. If one chooses to turn a blind eye to the latter - even in relation to taxes other than excise taxes - the ultimate effect is that one has no resources to invest in our common welfare.

Mr. Speaker! We all saw an example of this here in the chamber just two days ago, when the Sweden Democrats and the right-conservative government presented their spring budget. Very few of the Swedish households can count on any financial support from the Sweden Democrats and the bourgeois government, even though it is actually the case that many households are struggling right now. Many households do not have the possibility of making the money last for the most necessary things, such as nutritious food, to pay rent or, for that matter, to buy clothes for their children.

The spring budget completely lacked investments in our common welfare. No announcements were also made to municipalities and regions regarding increased resources, despite the fact that municipalities across the country are now preparing to cut back on schools, change elderly care, and cut back on healthcare. The economic crisis also affects municipalities and regions.

Short and sweet: The government's spring budget is a lost budget.

Mr. Speaker! I return to the excise taxes a bit more specifically. The spring budget also contained a novelty regarding the so-called plastic bag tax. This was not only a novelty for us in the opposition or for the general public, but apparently also for the Sweden Democrats. About one week before the budget was presented in its entirety, it was actually the Sweden Democrats who trumpeted that the plastic bag tax would be abolished. When the budget was presented, however, the announcement was that the question of the tax on plastic bags should be referred regarding whether to abolish or reduce the tax.

Quite seriously: In the midst of an economic crisis, when welfare is under severe pressure and when ordinary people do not know if they can afford to buy food that can be put in a bag of any kind at all, the Sweden Democrats and the government are engaged in negotiations about the plastic bag tax, and they still cannot communicate a common position.

Can this possibly be explained by the fact that the Liberals are part of the government? It was the party that most strongly pushed for the introduction of the plastic bag tax during the previous mandate period, but which is now so silent about this that the rustling of just one plastic bag seems deafening.

I believe that many with me are curious to receive a clear statement in this debate from the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and, not least, the Liberalerna regarding what will happen with the plastic bag tax.

Mr. Speaker! So some comments on the customs' important work. To prevent and counteract crime in connection with the import and export of goods is a large and important part of the customs' work, and due to the development of criminal activity we see in Sweden and the rest of Europe, this has rightly also received an increased focus in recent years.

For this reason, the former Social Democratic government implemented several important changes in, among others, the Smuggling Act, which entered into force in August 2021. The same government commissioned an inquiry for increased powers within law enforcement activities.

As late as September 2022, the Customs Authority Investigation submitted its partial report with several elaborated proposals for changes. Among others, a customs officer was to be given largely the same general right as a police officer or a coast guard officer to stop vehicles and other means of transport. Furthermore, customs officers were to be given extended rights to examine and open shipments. It also concerned changes in powers to detect and investigate crimes and more.

It is now up to the current government to return to the Riksdag with a proposal.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: In a debate about taxes and an authority's activities, it is important to see the whole picture. That means those who want to lower taxes owe us others the answer to an important question: Which things should society stop doing when the money is not enough?

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Peder Björk for an emotional speech - emotional at the expense of the truth, one could say if one is a bit critical.

The budget that was presented a couple of days ago is a so-called spring amendment budget. The honorable member will remember that when the budget for this year was decided, municipalities and regions received 12 billion kronor. These funds are intended for municipalities and regions to use for their needs. When Peder Björk talks about cuts in schools, elderly care, and healthcare, which municipalities does he mean? Does he mean the Social Democrat-led municipalities?

When it comes to the plastic bag tax, it works like this in a government with a base consisting of four parties: one has a limited space and negotiates over which things should be invested in in the budget for next year. Everyone is, however, in agreement that the plastic bag tax is a counterproductive tax that does not reduce environmental destruction, which harms Swedish companies that manufacture environmentally friendly plastic bags and which burdens Swedish households in an unreasonable way. It is simply a symbolic tax, and it should be abolished.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that Boriana Åberg took the floor on my behalf. Let us begin with the plastic bag tax.

Of course, a negotiation takes place between the parties that make up the government base. But the message that is then communicated is not very clear. The Sweden Democrats said early on that the tax shall be abolished, and now Boriana Åberg says the same thing. But the fact is that the government intends to refer a proposal to either abolish or reduce it, and the Liberals say nothing. My question is therefore: What is the message from the government base? Shall the tax be abolished or not? If it is to be abolished, when shall it be abolished?

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to resources for the municipalities, the bourgeois government and the support party had the opportunity to do what they failed to do in the autumn, that is, to give a clear message to municipalities and regions about how things will look moving forward. The year 2023 will be a lost year for municipalities and regions, but where will next year and the year after that be? What is the message from the government and the support party to the municipalities? Is it to cut back, or will increased subsidies be provided? The government is completely silent on this issue.

A responsible politician in a municipality, regardless of who governs it, ensures that the economy is adapted based on the conditions, and that currently means cutting back.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Peder Björk is satisfied that I took the floor on him, for I do indeed have a question.

Peder Björk praised his own government for the investments in customs and for the investigations that, for example, will stop the export of stolen goods. My question concerns the reservations of the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party because they reserved themselves against all the announcements the committee made regarding expanded powers for the Swedish Customs to combat crime. Before Peder Björk begins to consider saying that they reserved themselves because an investigation was ongoing, I would like to say that it was not quite like that.

When it came to whether the export of stolen goods should be classified as a crime under the smuggling act, the Social Democrats reserved themselves in the following manner: "We do not, however, consider that any circumstances have emerged that give the Riksdag reason to support the motions requesting that the export of stolen goods should constitute a crime under the smuggling act in the manner requested by the motioners."

Sweden is the only country where the export of stolen goods is not criminalized, and the Social Democrats think that it is okay. It is okay for them that theft gangs come here and take lawnmowers and boat motors and leave the country. They voted against criminalizing this.

There is not much for the Social Democrats to be proud of.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Boriana Åberg now suddenly wants to start talking about the Customs' activities. I interpret it in no other way than that Boriana Åberg, just like the government and other coalition parties, cannot provide any decision regarding the plastic bag tax. There are as many decisions as there are parties in the government base regarding the plastic bag tax. The rest of us look forward to receiving a decision on whether it should be abolished, reduced, or simply remain as it is.

Back to the municipalities' finances. You chose in the autumn to lower the tax by 13 billion kronor for those with high incomes. It is 13 billion kronor that could have been used to strengthen the municipalities' and regions' finances already this year - money that would have gone towards developing elderly care and childcare, avoiding cuts in schools and otherwise strengthening our common welfare.

But moderate politics ends up, as usual, in favoring those who earn the most instead of investing in welfare. That was the path they chose during the budget process last autumn, Mr. Speaker. Now that the spring budget was presented here in the chamber, there was no announcement of additional resources for municipalities and regions. It will lead to cuts in welfare, and the government and the Sverigedemokrater are responsible for that.

(Applause)

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

David Lång (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The imposition of excise duties must be done in a way that achieves the purpose of the tax, that is, to steer consumption or investments in a certain direction with regard to public health, the environment, or other effects that one wishes to achieve. The excise duties are also an important source of income for the state. In 2022, it amounted to approximately 150 billion kronor, and it is expected to increase further. It is therefore a large and important area we are debating. The referral deals with the motions that have been submitted during the general motion period.

The Sweden Democrats have, over the years, put forward many different proposals, and we have eight reservations in this report. Before the vote, I move for approval of reservation 18.

Mr. Speaker! The overall assessment of excise taxation is that it often hits the business sector and not infrequently the transport sector. Even small companies have been affected by severe burdens. From the previous government, there also seemed to be no self-criticism when we look at the various excise taxes that were simply pumped out.

The Sweden Democrats have long advocated that travel deductions and taxes on travel and transport should be designed so that people and companies can live and operate throughout Sweden, not least in the countryside. Reliable and cost-effective transport is necessary to strengthen companies' competitiveness and for growth across the entire country. Without functioning transport, companies cannot deliver goods to their customers and suppliers.

Previous governments' signals regarding the introduction of a kilometer tax, severely worsened travel deductions, and the introduction of an aviation tax are examples of rural-hostile proposals that create anxiety and diminished faith in the future among residents and businesses in rural areas. We want to counter this type of taxes, which do not tax actual emissions but are designed so that distances are taxed, because they do not create incentives to reduce environmentally impactful emissions. In a large country in terms of area with long distances and sparse railway infrastructure, road transport with passenger cars, buses, and trucks are still the only realistic means of transport for many of the country's entrepreneurs and residents, and therefore these taxes are perceived as aiming to limit the freedom of rural residents and their opportunity for an active life.

We say no to the plans to introduce some form of distance tax, that is, a tax paid by the sawmills for every kilometer harvested. Such a tax would mean the final blow for many Swedish sawmills, which in some cases could see a doubling of their tax burden. Regardless of what this tax is called, the consequences are negative and entail increased costs for citizens and companies.

Furthermore, the previous government's introduction of the aviation tax has already had negative effects for aviation. Flight routes have been discontinued. The costs for companies that hire, for example, consultants or send employees for training in other locations increase significantly when travel times in some cases double. The Sweden Democrats are therefore opposed to this as well.

Among the things that have begun to look a bit brighter now with the new government is, among other things, that the government has proposed that the waste incineration tax be abolished from January 1, 2023. The waste incineration tax has led to a number of combined heat and power plants and heating plants revising their investment plans. The tax has weakened the profitability of combined heat and power in Sweden and risks in the long run leading to reduced combined heat and power production. It is therefore important that the waste incineration tax remains abolished.

Regarding also the abolished carbon tax and the reduced energy tax on gasoline and diesel and the consequential changes for low-taxed oil, it should be mentioned that the energy tax on gasoline and diesel was reduced by 80 öre per liter based on the tax rates that would have applied and that the price of gasoline and diesel at the pump was thus lowered by 1 krona per liter including the value-added tax. Here, the reduced tax on diesel within agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture should also be mentioned, as well as an expanded reduction of carbon and energy tax on diesel used in work machines, ships, and certain boats in professional agricultural, forestry, and aquaculture activities, as well as also the much criticized electronics tax, or as it is often called, the chemicals tax, where no GDP indexing of the electronics tax is performed and also the deduction system is simplified. It could well have been abolished entirely, but it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker! We are in an economic downturn right now, and what we need is not to harm Swedish growth and Swedish competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, customs has also been included, for the sake of novelty, and I would also like to say something about that.

The Swedish Customs' operations have for very many years, perhaps largely since Sweden's entry into the EU in 1995, been deeply underfunded. The large-scale immigration has also led to increased smuggling and an increased use of violence for the purpose of guarding criminal interests. It is one of the reasons for the increased number of shootings, explosions, and other things that we have now almost become accustomed to.

The Sweden Democrats have since 2010 proposed significantly increased appropriations for the Swedish Customs and have also submitted proposals for increased powers for the Swedish Customs. In both cases, when it comes to the financial conditions and when it comes to the legal powers, it turns out that previous governments' proposals are far too weakly formulated to be anywhere near solving the problems.

Foreign theft gangs plunder Sweden of billions of kronor every year. The international gangs are estimated to be behind as much as 90 percent of all thefts of agricultural machinery, boat engines, car parts, and ATVs, and around half of all residential burglaries. The goods are then transported out of Sweden and sold largely within the former Eastern Bloc outside the EU. At the border, uniformed customs officers have stood and waved the cars with stolen goods through. They have not had the opportunity to do much else, because they have simply lacked authority, equipment, and sufficient staffing. It can, for example, be enough for the gangs to drive through customs shortly before the ferry is set to depart. In that case, customs does not have time to wait for the police, and the customs officers cannot do anything.

The previous government has promised to address this on several occasions. On February 7, 2018, the then Minister for Justice Morgan Johansson presented a comprehensive package of measures, as he called it. It did not lead to much. But when the then Minister for Finance Magdalena Andersson in 2021 presented some legislative proposals that would give Tullverket increased powers, it turned out to be cosmetics. Tullverket themselves wrote in their referral opinion to the Ministry of Finance: "The proposal also does not involve any change to the agency's mandate and therefore does not in itself prompt Tullverket to expand its export controls."

The Sweden Democrats, however, proposed that the export of stolen goods should be classified as a smuggling offense. On March 30 this year, the government announced that it had decided on additional directives for the Customs Authority Investigation, which means that the investigation shall submit proposals on how the export of stolen goods can be criminalized. It is part of the Tidö Agreement and an offensive against organized crime – also this a step in the right direction.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are debating today contains seventy motions from the general motion period within the areas of excise taxes and customs. These are motions concerning taxes on electricity, fuels, tobacco, cigarettes, sugar, air travel, chemicals, vehicles, and so on. They are taxes that some parties want to introduce or increase and others would preferably like to abolish or at least reduce.

It is said that there is an old Chinese curse that reads: "May you live in interesting times." For a serious politician, the curse can be modified to: "May you live in times of inflation and not be able to realize what you have promised your voters, at least not as quickly as they expect." And we are indeed living in interesting times.

A brutal war is raging 80 miles from here. We have high inflation and simultaneously a recession, high electricity prices and rising interest rates. The room to lower or abolish counterproductive point taxes is virtually non-existent. It is a matter of fighting inflation so that it does not become entrenched.

Mr. Speaker! The purpose of excise taxes is to correct negative external effects of the consumption and production of goods and services. Tax on carbon emissions provides incentives to reduce emissions and instead invest in environmentally friendly technology. Tax on cigarettes aims for people to smoke less or preferably quit entirely, and congestion charges aim to reduce car travel in large cities during rush hour. These are just a few examples.

In Sweden, we have about twenty excise taxes, and they bring in approximately 140 billion annually to the state treasury. It is no secret that some of these taxes have been introduced as a steering instrument but developed into an important source of income for the state. Some of these taxes have been loudly profiled as environmental taxes, but in reality, their function has been to contribute tax revenues to the state treasury rather than to address environmental problems.

The bonus-malus system, the aviation tax, the waste incineration tax, and the plastic bag tax are clear examples of such taxes. Calling taxes environmental taxes when they are not in reality creates major credibility problems towards the citizens, who find it difficult to take environmental policy seriously as it is not effective.

People see through it when politicians try to create an image that powerful measures are being taken when, in reality, they are ineffective from an environmental perspective and very costly for the individual and society. It is very positive that the government abolished the waste incineration tax and the combined heat and power tax.

I can only agree with David Lång regarding the aviation tax - it is an extremely poorly designed policy instrument. You do not tax emissions, you tax the journey itself. No incentive whatsoever is given for the use of biofuels or electricity instead of fossil fuels. Even if it had been possible to fly on pure water, the aviation tax would have been the same.

Mr. Speaker! We are also debating some motions concerning the Customs Service's powers and operations. The Customs Service has long warned against smuggling conducted in a manner that resembles industrial activity.

A few years ago, customs in Helsingborg uncovered an illegal liquor store in a warehouse. Opening hours were posted on the door, and on the shelves were printed price tags with flavor descriptions from Systembolaget. If the goods found on site had been sold legally, they would have generated 480,000 kronor in tax revenue. Illegal tobacco factories where hookah tobacco is produced have also been uncovered by Tullverket. The operations have been conducted professionally, with links to criminal networks and branches abroad. The state has been cheated out of several million in tax revenue.

If the Speaker permits, I shall move from the customs' work against smuggling of alcohol and tobacco to a subject that is intimately associated with it, namely the taxation of just alcohol and tobacco. The idea behind the excise taxes on these goods is that more expensive spirits, wine and beer make people drink less, more expensive tobacco makes smokers smoke less and snus users use snus less. But there is also a fiscal aspect. If more money is needed, it is always possible to raise the tax on alcohol and tobacco in the name of public health. The question is whether it really yields more tax revenue or rather promotes illegal substitutes such as home-brewing, smuggling and dealing. This needs to be investigated.

If the state wants more people to stop smoking, is it right to tax snus, which does not cause lung diseases, more heavily than cigarettes? Three years ago, the Expert Group for Studies in Public Economics published the report *Synd och skatt* (Sin and Tax). In it, it was investigated to what extent the snus tax corresponded to the social costs of snus, and it was concluded that the revenues compensated for the harmful effects by a long shot. It became a scientific confirmation that the tax on snus primarily aims to collect as large tax revenues as possible.

If snus is overtaxed, it risks losing ground to the benefit of cigarettes. But snus is, as is well known, often the path away from a cigarette addiction. Therefore, it should be cheaper, so that it can be worthwhile to replace smoking if one cannot quit entirely.

Mr. Speaker! Openness and free movement in Europe serve us well, but it was never the intention that it should mean free movement for criminals. The Swedish Customs' law enforcement activities must be strengthened without compromising the trade-related work. It should not be possible for foreign gangs to take orders for boat engines, lawnmowers, construction machinery, and car parts, travel to Sweden, steal, and then pass the border unhindered. Sweden shall not be a smorgasbord for criminals, and the property of Swedish taxpayers shall not be easy prey.

The Moderates and the other Tidö parties have long pushed for increased powers for Tullverket. During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag decided on several announcements regarding Tullverket's activities, including a new consolidated legislation giving Tullverket greater powers to combat crime, an expanded mandate for Tullverket to perform controls, and that the export of smuggled goods shall constitute a crime according to the Smuggling Act. This has already been mentioned in the exchange of remarks with Peder Björk, but I want to repeat that it is worth noting that the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet reserved themselves against these announcements.

It is welcome that the government three weeks ago issued an additional directive to the ongoing investigation on the Customs Service's powers. It is a directive that means the investigator shall submit legislative proposals on how the export of stolen goods shall be criminalized. Until now, Mr. Speaker, it has not been forbidden to export stolen goods from Sweden, which explains why Sweden is so severely affected by theft crimes. But it does not explain why the previous government did nothing about the matter.

This decision is part of the Tidö Agreement and constitutes an important step in the government's offensive against organized crime. It is the largest offensive of its kind in Sweden's history.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! In its reasons for rejection, the committee refers to the fact that the government in the budget bill for 2023 has stated that Sweden shall pursue an effective and ambitious energy, climate, and environmental policy. Vänsterpartiet does not agree with the committee's positive view of the government's climate policy. The Climate Policy Council has, during the spring, failed the climate policy and states that Sweden's climate policy has lost its direction. Several of the decisions the government has taken will lead to increased emissions instead of the goal of reduced emissions by 2030 and zero emissions by 2045.

The Climate Policy Council has for several years stated that the climate transition needs to accelerate and emissions decrease faster than until now, and points out that it would be remarkable and serious if the reduction were now not only to proceed too slowly but turn in the opposite direction. It would be the first time in at least two decades that changes in Sweden's national policy collectively lead to increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

In addition, the UN's climate panel, IPCC, has presented its final report. The world is heading towards at least two to three degrees of warming at the end of this century, which would entail catastrophic consequences for people and nature, something we are already seeing the results of with more natural disasters and droughts. Sweden and other countries need to increase their efforts to reduce emissions and develop climate policy.

In that perspective, it is surprising that the committee majority takes to their chests and refers to the government's climate policy as the reason for rejecting motions within the climate and environmental area.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a different climate policy and argues that the goals that Sweden has set are too low. They would need to be tightened, and Sweden's emissions need to be reduced even further. The government's policy is going in the wrong direction. In our budget motion A fair path through the crisis, we show that a different climate and environmental policy is possible, and we will continue with offensive proposals within the environmental area.

Mr. Speaker! I want to raise three proposals from the general motion period in this debate.

Today, Sweden's electric collective transport, such as trains, metro, and trams, are exempt from energy tax. Electrified buses, however, are not covered by this tax exemption. The possibility for the government to let electric buses be covered by the same exemption from energy tax as rail vehicles already exists in the energy tax directive. The EU Commission has confirmed this and approves that member states introduce tax exemptions for electric buses.

Since electric buses contribute to a better climate, fewer air pollutants and reduced noise, Sweden must seize this opportunity. In the same way as other electric public transport on rails, I believe that electric buses should also be exempt from energy taxation.

Vänsterpartiet has submitted a motion that electric buses and electric public transport vessels shall be exempted from energy tax and that electrified buses and thus all emission-free public transport shall be favored regardless of mode of transport.

Today, heavy truck traffic does not pay for the impact it has through its external costs to society in the form of, for example, environmental and climate impact and wear and tear on the roads. In collaboration with Vänsterpartiet, the previous government produced the memorandum A new direction for taxation of heavy truck traffic. In the memorandum, it is proposed that the taxation be changed from a time-based to a distance-based taxation for heavy truck traffic.

The objective is that truck traffic should to a greater extent pay for its external costs and to a greater extent contribute to financing infrastructure and leveling the competitive conditions between Swedish and foreign truck traffic operating in Sweden. But no proposal has come from the government regarding a road wear fee, but instead, an additional investigation was commissioned which was completed in March 2022.

The tax should be differentiated geographically, partly based on urban and rural driving, and partly based on areas where there are or lack alternatives to road transport. In their submissions, the referral bodies have, among other things, taken the position that the tax should be differentiated so that it reflects emissions with regard to what is possible according to the Eurovignette Directive. The renegotiated directive gives the member states the opportunity to introduce environmental and climate-steering road tolls, and the government should use this opportunity to introduce a new steering mechanism for a sustainable transport system. A distance-based tax on heavy trucks would provide a climate benefit, and there are great gains in that Swedish and foreign trucks can be taxed on equal terms.

The intensive private car use in our larger cities is a significantly greater threat to the environment than the car traffic in our countryside. The environmental and climate impact from transport in larger cities can, for example, be addressed with the help of congestion charges and major investments in improved public transport and cycling.

The introduction of congestion charges in first Stockholm and thereafter Gothenburg was welcome, and there is a need for further measures to strengthen the congestion charge as a steering tool. A municipality cannot today decide for itself that it shall introduce a congestion charge. Vänsterpartiet argues that municipalities and regions themselves should be allowed to decide if they want to introduce a congestion charge and how the revenues should be used.

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all the proposals that I have accounted for, but I move for approval only to reservation 4.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now discussing the excise taxes on electricity, fuel, vehicles, chemicals, alcohol, tobacco, flights, waste and plastic bags, but also the Swedish Customs Service's powers and operations as well as the payment of customs duties and import taxes.

There are very many different excise taxes on a multitude of different areas. Common to many of them is that they aim to steer our behaviors. We should drink less, smoke less, gamble less, fly less, and buy fewer new phones. In some cases, the purpose is good, and a tax is also the right tool. In other cases, it is more questionable. It can be questioned whether the purpose is right, whether a tax is the right tool, and whether the tax is designed in the right way.

For us Christian Democrats, it is important that the excise taxes that exist fulfill their purpose and do not have unreasonable consequences, otherwise they risk eroding trust in the entire tax system and, in the long run, also trust in the state as such. For us, the plastic bag tax is something we want to remove, but it must be possible. It also needs to be referred because the EU has rules in the area. We must take those into account.

Mr. Speaker! The problem with the high electricity costs and the consequences they lead to for private individuals and companies must be addressed. We must increase energy production, not least with expanded nuclear power plants but also with other types of energy, so that we get a more sustainable mix. It is also important to invest in the electricity grid, so that capacity can increase and the transmission of electricity in the grids is facilitated.

But measures are also needed in the tax area. We Christian Democrats want a shock absorber on the energy tax on electricity, so that the tax is automatically lowered when prices exceed a certain level. This will dampen the negative effect that the energy price peaks have. Other European countries have lowered either the electricity tax or the VAT to bring down electricity prices. The so-called bottleneck revenues, which we have used in Sweden until now, will not be sufficient going forward. Therefore, something else needs to be done. At the same time, there is an efficiency shortage. Therefore, we welcome that Swedes have now learned to save energy and reduce electricity consumption. It is good for the future.

Mr. Speaker! The excise tax on alcohol and tobacco has an effect. A high price has lowered consumption, especially among young people. We can state that all tobacco use is unhealthy. For the Christian Democrats, it is important to improve public health by preventing people from starting to smoke and by making it easier for more people to quit. But a balance was needed between the need to minimize the negative harmful effects and the risk that high taxes lead to increased smuggling, illegal trade, and other crime.

Mr. Speaker! Another public health issue is whether Sweden should introduce a sugar tax, especially in beverages. In the countries where such a tax has been introduced, producers have instead added other sweeteners, which cause spikes in the body's insulin system and can drive cravings for sweets. The Christian Democrats believe that it is important to identify structural measures and steering mechanisms that make the healthy choices natural and easy for everyone in society and, in the long run, create better public health. The Government has tasked the National Food Agency with getting the food industry to voluntarily reduce the salt and sugar content in food. We believe that it is a better way than to legislate.

Mr. Speaker! Continuous work is ongoing within the EU to improve and simplify customs management. A single point of contact for customs is now being introduced, which will facilitate international trade, promote a smooth flow, and contribute to reducing the administrative burden, especially for businesses. This is something that we from the Christian Democrats truly welcome.

We take smuggling and other crime in connection with the import and export of goods seriously. Tullverket has been given expanded possibilities to intervene against crimes such as the export of suspected stolen goods. But otherwise, it is the responsibility of Polismyndigheten and not Tullverket to handle this.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 6. We actually stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time and in accordance with the instructions we have received from our group leaders, I select one.

The time is late, and I think I will try to shorten my contribution somewhat. You may recognize the discussion about food prices. It is not so strange, as it has become significantly more expensive to shop in the store. What I can object to, Mr. Speaker, is that a very large amount of the political focus lies on the retailers' profits. It is exactly as if all retailers were cutting gold, when the fact is that it is not actually like that. If one starts to examine the turnover, one can see that the profit is not huge. It is a few kronor in profit for every hundred kronor.

On the other hand, perhaps the government should review excise taxes and VAT along the path from farm to table. The fact is that a great deal happens from primary production until you reach the store. The farmers are taxed. Then you have the transport, the sausage factory, and so on. Quite a lot happens before the item reaches the checkout. I could also point out that the VAT on food is at 12 percent, which is significantly more than what the merchant receives in their pocket when we have put our goods in the highly taxed plastic bag and walked out of the store.

I hope that we can return to this in the Committee on Taxation, perhaps with a joint committee initiative where we all review the excise taxes and the VAT, so that we can keep our primary producers and farmers in this country. If it is so, my friends and colleagues, that we want agriculture to be a part of our total defense, then it is probably time that we lower the costs and start there.

This brings me to a point tax that I would like to discuss a little bit, namely the carbon and energy tax on diesel. Here, the government has chosen to make an extension of the reduction regarding agriculture and forestry. The Center Party was last year, together with the then government, the driving force to lower these costs, but that only applies until July this year. The bourgeois government has extended the reduction for the rest of the year, which is very good. The reason for lowering the costs for diesel use for our farmers and foresters was that the costs for input materials have become so enormously high, largely caused by the war in Ukraine. The purpose was to maintain and strengthen Swedish food production during the extraordinary situation that prevailed due to events in the outside world.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Center Party would like to make this reduction of the tax on diesel used in agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture permanent. We would also like it to be phased out when possible and replaced by an agricultural deduction – a kind of green tax shift. Furthermore, we would like to introduce a bio-premium for clean biofuels. The idea is that it should level the price difference that exists today between fossil and renewable fuels.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say a few words about the energy tax. Combined heat and power is a fantastic asset, because it is a stable and adjustable power source that complements the variable solar and wind energy. But unfortunately, it is the case that a few years ago, an energy and carbon tax was introduced on renewable bio-oil. That was very unfortunate, and it follows almost the same development as has unfortunately occurred for biogas.

And with this tax, the bio-oils became almost twice as expensive as the fossil equivalent. Many power and district heating producers had adapted their boilers to a renewable fuel that was suddenly taxed as if it were fossil, that is to say, twice as much. Another consequence was that some who had intended to transition did not do so, because it became cheaper to use the fossil oil. Some only produced heat and refrained from producing electricity, despite the fact that the demand for electricity is large. It simply became too expensive, because the tax is so incredibly high. This is not good for our security of supply regarding electricity, nor is it good for the transition to a fossil-free society.

Therefore, I want to urge my colleagues in the chamber to try to make an application to the EU Commission for exemptions from the state aid rules with the aim of reintroducing the tax exemption for bio-oils. We would benefit from that. We will definitely benefit from it next winter.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a great potential in increasing Swedish solar power production in the coming years. Did you know that today only about 1 percent of the country's electricity production consists of solar power? The potential is much greater. We want to increase local production of solar power by simply lowering or abolishing the tax on self-consumption of solar power.

It is something that we hope we could reach an agreement on. There is certainly a very large potential considering many industrial roofs, barn roofs, and other roofs that could be covered with solar panels. It would also do a lot of good for the heating in the industries and the barns, for example.

In conclusion, I would like to mention something about the plastic bag tax. Now it seems it might disappear. Not that I mind, perhaps I should say. It is not because there is any intrinsic value in using just plastic bags. On the other hand, the legislation was very poorly designed. It has had consequences that actually should have been addressed long ago, Mr. Speaker. It has actually never been a question of any plastic bag tax.

I do not know if you are familiar with the company Gaia. It is located in Helsingborg. It has invested time, money, and innovation into developing its own material, biodolomer. It is a composition of several different renewable materials that they have made bags out of in Helsingborg.

They are not made of plastic. They are biodegradable and possible to use 50 times. But they have nevertheless been hit with the plastic bag tax because they looked like traditional plastic bags and were not judged to be for durable use.

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of what one thinks about the plastic bag tax, one should in any case agree that the legislative craftsmanship has not been particularly successful when one has managed to place a stumbling block in front of a Swedish innovation aimed at replacing precisely the plastic bags.

Briefly put, it is in such a way that the EU has invested millions in a Swedish company that has innovated the carrier bag industry. At the same time, poorly designed Swedish legislation has undermined the company.

On the drawing board is a product that should have the potential to be developed further, made into a successful export success, and through that replace plastic bags in places where waste management is poorer than in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I finally consider it very good that the plastic bag tax is being reviewed because, in its current design, it simply does not hit the target, if the intention is to have a system that rewards what is more environmentally friendly. Otherwise, it is nothing other than another source of income, a fiscal tax for the state.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Lindahl, for the speech!

I requested the floor to say that if one reads the point Better conditions for combined heat and power in the Tidö Agreement, one sees that the tax on bio-oil will be reviewed in order to create better conditions for combined heat and power.

Since I am here and have the opportunity to ask questions, I would like to ask Helena Lindahl about the Center Party's reservation regarding the introduction of a sugar tax.

I was very surprised that the Center Party, which is a liberal party, is coming forward with such a proposal. I was also surprised considering that all our neighboring countries have tried it without achieving any results.

Finland introduced excise taxes on sugar and ice cream in 2011. Two years later, it was found that it had not led to any positive health effects, and therefore it was abolished.

In 2017, Norway shock-increased the sugar tax by 83 percent on candy and chocolate and by 43 percent on soda. It took only one year before the tax was abolished. It had no positive effects at all, except for a positive effect for the border traders on the Swedish side. They broke all-time records in sales.

Denmark also introduced a tax on fat. This resulted in people starting to buy their groceries in Germany instead.

My question is: Why does the Centre Party believe that Sweden will succeed in something that our neighboring countries have not succeeded with?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! How pleasant. I do not think I have read the Tidö Agreement point by point. I am pleased that the government wants to invest in bio-oils. I truly hope that we can get an EU state aid approval to simply remove the carbon and energy tax so that bio-oil becomes competitive again.

When it comes to the sugar tax, I can say this late in the evening that I had hoped that no one would see it. But now I am still standing here, Boriana. We had a lively debate about the sugar tax at our last meeting.

It is not a uniform opinion within the party itself. Now, the reservation is written by our former group leader, who is also a doctor, who thinks that we should eat less sugar, which is also commendable.

I believe it says in the text that, together with the previous government, one has spoken with the producers about that they should first voluntarily look into the possibility of reducing the sugar content before even discussing any form of sugar tax.

As a liberal, I can think that it is a better way to simply get different things through. We shall have to return to that.

I spend quite a lot of time up in the mountain regions. Very many Norwegians come across the border to Västerbotten. There are large diesel buses that stand and burn diesel where they sell candy and tobacco to the Norwegians.

I understand that with the sugar tax that they have there, people would rather drive over to Sweden and buy it there.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to advertise the Tidö Agreement. There is much useful and pleasant to read if one wants to delve deeper if one has an hour to spare after the debate tonight.

There is no evidence that high taxes make people stop with unwanted consumption. If one remembers the total ban on alcohol in the 1920s in the USA, it had the opposite effect. Furthermore, it fueled crime and smuggling and resulted in all the negative consequences of a prohibition.

I do not think that people will stop with sweets and other sugary treats if you make them more expensive. They will choose cheaper alternatives or continue to consume what they want. Instead, they might cut back on something that is healthy. They buy more cookies and sweets and fewer carrots or something else that is good for health.

I hope that the trail of the former group leader does not overshadow the clarity of the next motions that the Centerpartiet will submit regarding taxes.

When it comes to taxes, we can have a common view that we should not levy any unnecessary taxes. People are best suited to decide over their own money and their own health. The state is not nearly as good at that.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Personally, I can agree with that. I do not think either that the state should decide all too much over the individual. Adults can make their own decisions.

I can also agree with Boriana Åberg that we perhaps need to review tax and VAT a bit more. As I mentioned in my speech, there is a great deal to be done when it comes to food.

If we, in the name of honesty, want to become more self-sufficient in Sweden regarding Swedish food, we simply need to review the cost structure, excise taxes, and VAT for the entire chain.

Did you know that what we are self-sufficient in today in Sweden are the ingredients for a carrot cake? I do not think one would eat oneself full on carrot cake if things were to go wrong and war were to break out.

Therefore, we probably need to do something more than taxing the farmers we have to death. Unfortunately, it is the case that more and more farmers are closing down their operations. It is very costly, and there are many burdens, administration, and excise taxes. If we want more people to enter that industry, we simply need to review the entire cost picture from farm to fork.

I hope that most parties - or preferably all parties - would like us to do something jointly regarding this, because that is the only thing we could do to increase food production in Sweden if we seriously mean that it is part of Sweden's future total defense.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are talking about excise taxes and the Swedish Customs' activities.

Pig taxes exist because we want to regulate consumption or behaviors, as several before me have said. To mention a pig tax that the Liberals consider urgent to review, I want to mention the pig tax on electricity. When it comes to the pig tax on electricity, we have a completely different situation today in Sweden and the world. Therefore, we need to reconsider it.

Now we need to accelerate the electrification of society and industry to meet the climate transition and eliminate emissions. Transitioning industry and transport and replacing fossil energy sources with electricity are activities we must pursue, and the forecasts show, as everyone knows, that the demand for electricity will double. Electricity should, in other words, not be taxed as highly as it is today.

It is time to challenge the electricity tax with an ambition to lower it. It is also an effective way to alleviate the high electricity prices for private individuals and companies across the country and to provide conditions for transition and electrification on equal terms.

Mr. Speaker! We shall also speak about the customs. When moving on to the Swedish Customs and the customs' operations, it cannot be emphasized enough how important this authority, with all its staff, is to effectively eliminate the conditions for crime and criminal networks.

At the same time, we must accommodate the internal mobility that we have between EU countries, and in that regard, for Sweden's part, I am primarily thinking that it must be possible to commute effectively, for example between Sweden and Denmark in the Öresund region. Nevertheless, it is important that the customs ensure efficient passage also between the EU and third countries, such as the border crossing between Sweden and Norway.

Mr. Speaker! We Liberals will always be clear about our priorities. Solving the lack of freedom that people experience in their daily lives, every day, stands at the very top of the priority list. The issue of safety is perhaps one of the greatest freedom issues that we Liberals will never stop fighting for.

Thousands of weapons are smuggled across the Swedish borders annually. These are weapons that then end up in the hands of gang criminals and are used to exert violence and threats - which we know often result in death.

Incredible amounts of drugs are smuggled into Sweden every year. This is what secures the criminal gangs' multi-million industry. Gang crime must be fought on all fronts. Against an international crime that knows no borders, the control of what is brought into and out of the country must truly function. It is that simple, and so difficult at the same time. Therefore, it is good and important that the customs have received increased powers and that more investigations are underway in order to further strengthen the customs in their important work to choke off the importation of the criminal gangs' goods.

Mr. Speaker! What I have said now is not enough, even though it is in itself a large area of responsibility. Customs must also ensure that clearances are correct and that the correct fees are charged, while at the same time the border crossings must not constitute an obstacle to the EU's free movement or, for that matter, the mobility between Sweden and third countries.

To mention an example of this, I have just been and visited Svinesund and the customs station there. I took important lessons home with me. Sweden and Norway are very important trading partners to each other, and 70 percent of the cargo passes through Svinesund. Furthermore, a large amount of cross-border commuting occurs between the countries there.

The border between Sweden and Norway is one of the longest borders between the EU and a third country that the union has. Today, this important border crossing is affected by major problems, with long truck queues sometimes lasting several hours to be able to pass from Norway into Sweden. This is, of course, devastating not only for the area around Svinesund, but it is also a national matter.

Therefore, it is important and pleasing that Tullverket is actively working with both short-term solutions in this specific area and long-term solutions throughout its entire organization to streamline the customs' operations. This includes, for example, digitalization to facilitate and improve the important work that the customs performs today. I will, of course, continue to encourage and follow this with great interest.

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

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the Liberals pushed very hard that they wanted to see the introduction of a plastic bag tax, not least in negotiations on the budget with the then Social Democratic and Green Party government.

A few weeks ago, before the spring budget was presented, the Sweden Democrats came out and said that the plastic bag tax should be abolished. The liberal Minister for Climate and Environment said: This is a misunderstanding. There is no such agreement. When the Minister for Finance and the government then presented their spring budget, the Minister for Finance's announcement was that the plastic bag tax should be referred for either complete abolition or reduction.

Mr. Speaker! In Cecilia Rönn's speech, I did not hear the plastic bag tax being brought up. But earlier today in the debate, several other speakers have expressed how they view a plastic bag tax. I believe there are more than just me who are now wondering how the Liberals view the plastic bag tax.

My question to Cecilia Rönn is therefore quite simply: How do the Liberals view the plastic bag tax? Should it remain unchanged? Should it be reduced? Or have the Liberals changed their opinion and think that it should be abolished?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! In the January agreement, we pushed through several matters. We are most proud of having removed the wealth tax and that we also got the Social Democrats on board with the important reform.

When it comes to the plastic bag tax, this was also an issue that we pushed, just as Member Peder Björk mentioned. The Social Democrats, who have many years of government activity behind them, should know that any taxes that are to be changed must be referred first. That is exactly what has been done. After that, they shall be negotiated and prioritized.

The plastic bag tax has changed the behavior of our population, and that is well and good. But it has also missed the mark, as it has, for example, hit bags that look like plastic but are not made of plastic. It has also, for example, missed bags that are produced and are harmful to the environment, for example, bags on a roll.

That is why the Liberals have been very clear that we can, of course, reconsider things. We do not think that this is a tax that has achieved the effect that was intended. Nevertheless, it shall be referred and negotiated, and we do not conduct the negotiations publicly. We conduct them in the room together with our government colleagues and the Sverigedemokraterna. After that, we will issue a statement on what happens with this tax.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have the greatest respect and understanding that there is a giving and a taking in a negotiation. I also have the greatest respect for the fact that sometimes one wins something and sometimes one loses something. One simply has to compromise.

Cecilia Rönn is now saying that the Liberals are prepared to discuss the plastic bag tax but that they do not intend to do so publicly. It is quite surprising that there does not seem to be any consensus even on that issue within the cooperation in the government base. The Sweden Democrats clearly stated that the tax should be abolished. We have heard several members from the government base here in the speaker's chair today, Mr. Speaker, say that the plastic bag tax should be abolished - not changed, not adjusted, not reduced, but abolished.

Then I still think it is important that we here in the chamber, but above all the voters, receive a statement on what the Liberals think in this matter. So my question, again, to Cecilia Rönn is: Are the Liberals prepared to abolish the plastic bag tax entirely?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Given that Member Peder Björk in his speech stated that it was remarkable that the government parties plus the Sverigedemokraterna had a debate about the existence or non-existence of the plastic bag tax in these difficult economic times, I must say that I think Member Peder Björk places very great weight on precisely the plastic bag tax in these difficult economic times.

Nor did I hear anything in the member's speech about which taxes the Social Democrats want to introduce or change to make the situation better than it is today given the economic situation.

I can repeat what I said. The question regarding the plastic bag tax has been referred. The consequences it will have and what it will cost are being investigated right now, just as with a lot of other tax proposals that the government parties and Sverigedemokraterna have submitted and will then negotiate. We will handle the negotiations in the rooms where the negotiations are to take place, again, and we will report on the results of the negotiations.

Furthermore, the Liberals have been clear, just as our government colleagues, that the tax has not had the intended effect. Therefore, we are definitely prepared to review it. But it must be negotiated and prioritized like everything else. I believe that Member Peder Björk is well aware of how that works. But the plastic bag tax is no sacred cow for the Liberals.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then we were last out on this exciting issue, at half past ten in the evening.

We in Miljöpartiet want to create an economy within the planet's boundaries and make Sweden the world's first fossil-free welfare state. We believe in taxing large fortunes more but lowering the tax on work and in the countryside. We believe in lowering small businesses' tax on work and raising the tax on environmental destruction. We want to lower taxes on what is good for the environment, such as repairs, recycling, and second hand.

We believe that those with the most money, who also cause greater emissions, should contribute more to the transition and welfare through a progressive taxation of capital. Those with the fewest resources shall receive more social services, lower taxes, and more support in the transition. We also believe in promoting economic equality and equity.

As we have heard from previous speakers, tax policy is an important tool for creating the society we want. Many of the environmental problems we see in the world today are due to so-called negative externalities, problems that arise as a result of our consumption but whose costs to our society are not included in the price we pay. If that which we consume that is bad for the environment, climate, and humans had to bear its actual costs through taxes, the consumption of this would have decreased significantly a long time ago.

We want a tax system that phases out what is bad for the environment but maintains a stable tax base to finance our common welfare and social services. That which is good needs to have low tax or be subsidized, and that which is bad needs to have a higher tax. That which is really bad should preferably be prohibited.

The tax system must aim to achieve long-term sustainability. It should not solely be the individual's responsibility to have the right knowledge and be able to afford to make sustainable decisions regarding their consumption. Often, the sustainable alternatives can be more expensive for the consumer, and far from everyone can afford to prioritize sustainability. So, we cannot have it that way.

The tax system should contribute to ensuring that the price of different alternatives sends a clear signal about what is sustainable and in which direction we are heading. It can be done. Our economy needs to become more circular, and taxes are one of our most important tools to get us there.

We have many good proposals in the tax area. I will now speak primarily about two of them, and I will return later with my demands.

The need for electricity will double in the near future. The great need for electricity is due to many factors but primarily to an increased electrification of the transport sector and a transition of the industry to fossil-free production. We are in the middle of a transition to reach our high-set climate goals.

To meet these needs, we need to work with several different parts in parallel. We must use energy more efficiently - we can get very many terawatt-hours through energy efficiency. We can also get energy by investing in smart grids and flexibility. We have some slack in our subscriptions that we can quickly allocate to those who need it.

Point tax and tariff

But it will not be enough. We need to have more electricity production. I believe we are all in complete agreement on that. We also need to have different types of power sources.

That is exactly why it is important to encourage self-production of electricity. It is a very strong tool to enable just this: an increased production spread geographically across the entire country. One way to do that is to completely exempt self-production from taxes. Customers would then have power in a completely different way over their energy consumption and energy supply. One can choose to use their own electricity, save the electricity, or sell the electricity they do not need. It contributes both to a stable energy system with good access to electricity and to lower electricity bills for customers in the long run.

Another thing that is extremely important and that we have heard a lot about today is fossil subsidies, or tax cuts on the fossil. Even though some of my colleagues talk about wanting a 100 percent fossil-free system, it does not seem to be implemented in practice because the fossil is being subsidized.

We must immediately reduce our fossil dependency. Miljöpartiet believes that an important part is that we must phase out the subsidies for fossil use that we have today. This concerns subsidies through tax reductions, deductions, and special exemptions. It is true that certain industries will need to be compensated for the increased costs that arise when fossil subsidies are removed. Such support should stimulate a faster transition to fossil-free.

We believe that above all, agriculture needs support here. It needs help to replace the fossil subsidies with a deduction that lowers the tax on jobs and entrepreneurship for agriculture.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 3, which concerns the abolition of the tax on self-produced electricity even above the limit of 500 kilowatts.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 April.)

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