Subsidiarity test of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing the Union Customs Code and setting up the European Union Customs Agency
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the Commission's proposal for a new Union Customs Code and the establishment of a European Customs Agency. S considers that the Riksdag is not convinced that such far-reaching changes are needed and that the Member States are better suited to design the sanctions system 1. SD argues that a new customs authority is unnecessary and that the transfer of power to Brussels is worrying, while they also consider that common minimum levels for sanctions conflict with the principle of subsidiarity 2. M emphasizes the customs' important role in crime fighting and drug trafficking, but also considers that sanctions should be able to be decided at the national level in order to take into account national conditions 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! We live in a time of anxiety and unrest. In times of anxiety and unrest, it falls upon those of us who have been entrusted to manage to do everything we can to strengthen the common good, that which guarantees security and predictable conditions.
Today we gather here in the chamber of the Riksdag to debate the frameworks for the common good at a slightly higher level. We are debating the rules of the game for the EU's customs union and the limits of national self-determination.
It is a unanimous Committee on Taxation that has stood behind proposing that the Riksdag submit a reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. It is an opinion in which we propose that the Riksdag underlines the importance of a well-functioning customs union as a prerequisite for the internal market and trade with the rest of the world. The Riksdag is genuinely positive towards proposals that contribute to fulfilling this objective.
The Riksdag is, however, unlike the Commission, not convinced that such a far-reaching change of the customs union as the Commission's proposal implies is necessary. Furthermore, the benefit of having harmonized rules must be weighed against the member states' powers and possibilities to introduce and maintain their own national rules. The Riksdag considers that the member states are better suited to decide how the sanctions system should be designed, taking into account national circumstances.
Furthermore, the Riksdag considers that the commission has not shown that it is necessary to introduce a common regulation of sanctions in order to achieve the desired goals of the proposal.
I want, Madam Speaker, to emphasize that the unanimous Tax Committee in no way underestimates the importance of a functional and operational customs union. The internal market is strongly aided by common regulations so that transparency and clarity shall apply regarding which people, which goods, and which services move within the internal market.
It is, however, a neighboring task to maintain the balance within the union and constantly ensure that decisions are made at the right level. It is the very point of the subsidiarity principle that decisions should be made at the right level and as close as possible to those affected by the decision. Therefore, customs regulations become an area where some decisions have been made at an overarching level, but where national self-determination must also be monitored - handled correctly for mutual benefit.
Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Taxation's report SkU9, which means that the Riksdag submits a reasoned statement to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission for a customs union that stands strong in a challenging time.
Eric Westroth (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we have the opportunity to highlight in the chamber one of the Committee on Taxation's subsidiarity assessments, which does not happen particularly often.
What is the proposal that is on the table? It is referred to as a proposal for a regulation establishing the Union Customs Code and setting up the European Union Customs Agency.
Briefly and somewhat simplified, the proposal is about replacing the current Union Customs Code with a new one. The new code consists of 256 articles and contains four major novelties compared to the old code. One of the novelties is that a hub for the EU's customs data is to be established, meaning that there is an intention to replace the existing IT systems, which consist of 27 different IT environments and a number of national systems existing in each member state. This is intended to give customs a better overview during risk assessment in the supply chain and enable more targeted and strategic work. The aim is to strengthen customs' ability to monitor and control which goods are imported into and exported from the customs union.
Another piece of news is the establishment of a new European customs authority. The idea is that risk management shall be carried out at a central level and that the incredibly large amount of data that will exist in the new customs data hub to be developed shall be processed. The Union's customs code shall also contain new provisions on restrictive measures and a crisis management mechanism, this in order to prevent, for example, sanctions against a third country from being bypassed and to achieve better functioning during cross-border crises similar to the corona pandemic.
Finally, the new code also contains provisions on customs law violations and sanctions. The aim is, therefore, to introduce minimum requirements for punishment when the regulatory framework has not been followed.
Madam Speaker! The Committee on Taxation has treated this matter as a so-called subsidiarity test. This means that we do not look at the proposal in substance but assess whether this is decided at the correct level for the objective to be achieved. The main rule is that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible, but that the objectives of the proposal must still be achieved.
Trade is something that is positive and an important component for the prosperity of our country. It is primarily on the companies in Sweden that export products and services abroad that we build our welfare and our society. The Sweden Democrats are fundamentally a trade-friendly party, and every simplification that can be made to facilitate trade between countries - whether it is with other EU countries or with third countries - we see as positive.
Therefore, it could also be positive with the approach found in the new Union Customs Code. Having a common system for customs documents, regardless of whether the goods are entering or leaving the EU, facilitates things for the companies and authorities involved. However, there is a risk, as so often happens when the EU is involved in developing systems, that it becomes over-engineered and extra complicated. One hardly managed to complete the implementation of the previous customs code before it was observed that it had deficiencies in several areas and that many of the expected benefits were missing.
Madam Speaker! There are some parts of the proposal that the committee has reacted to. Unfortunately, when it comes to customs, we have already relinquished much of the national right of self-determination and instead delegated it to the EU, but we consider the establishment of a European customs authority that would be placed above the national customs authorities to be unnecessary. We do not believe that moving more power from our national parliaments to Brussels because customs do not function in certain countries actually solves any problems. One should focus the energy on correcting errors where they exist rather than believing that everything will improve with a new superior authority at the EU level.
We see the EU's constant display of ambition to move the goalposts and transfer more power from our national parliaments to Brussels as worrying and as something that should concern more people. This subsidiarity test does not concern just this part of the power shift, but since the proposed common customs authority is not yet fully negotiated, we nevertheless wish to send an appeal to the government that we consider that the introduction of a new customs authority should be able to be questioned from a proportionality perspective.
The part concerning the application of minimum levels for sanctions or for the punishment of companies that have not followed or do not fully follow the regulatory framework, we consider however to be in conflict with the subsidiarity principle. Naturally, we believe that sanctions should be effective, proportionate and deterrent, but the committee objects to common minimum levels being determined for the sanctions in the manner proposed in the directive.
According to the Committee on Taxation, the sanctions system needs to be adapted to the national conditions that prevail, and at the same time, we consider that the Commission has not shown that the goals cannot be achieved without deciding on common minimum levels for this. The Committee considers that sanctions are best determined at the national level and therefore proposes a reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. In the opinion, the importance of a well-functioning customs union as a prerequisite for the internal market and trade with the rest of the world is emphasized.
At the same time, we are not convinced that such far-reaching changes to the customs union as proposed are necessary. We furthermore oppose union-wide minimum levels for sanctions and argue that this should be a national competence to decide on. Consequently, the Commission's proposal in this part conflicts with the subsidiarity principle.
Madam Speaker! We Sverigedemokrater support the reasoned opinion and think it is positive that all other parties in the committee do the same.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Madam Speaker! The Swedish Customs' activities are very important, both to ensure that we collect our customs duties and to ensure that we have control over the goods that are imported into Sweden. In addition to this is the mission of crime fighting, which, especially in these times, has been very important.
The mission regarding crime fighting is shared by the Swedish Customs together with, among others, the Swedish Tax Agency and the Swedish Enforcement Authority, and it also involves being able to counter the criminal gangs' economic activities. Therefore, the customs also has a special role there. The Swedish Customs today does a very good job together with its European colleagues when it comes to combating criminal activity. This applies not least to the drug trade but naturally also to other criminal activities.
Let me dwell a little on this regarding the drug trade and the smuggling of drugs. It has become very extensive, or rather, the customs service has made large seizures. So far this year, the customs service has made record seizures of drugs - just as an example, during the first half of the year, the customs service seized over 850 kilos of cocaine. It is a very substantial increase compared to last year and the years before.
Subsidiarity check of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing the Union Customs Code and setting up the European Union Customs Agency
This important work must continue, and cooperation with other countries' customs authorities is a crucial part of that work. The new customs code and many of the proposals are important in order to be able to access the extensive drug trafficking that exists in Europe. The issue itself in this matter, which we therefore are not actually addressing, is of great importance. It shows that this should rather be implemented.
The Commission's proposal for a new customs code is, in large parts, a very good proposal to improve cooperation and strengthen the internal market as well as increase the capacity for law enforcement measures. The committee, and also we Moderates, consider however that the proposal on sanctions that the previous speakers have touched upon could be decided at the national level - this primarily so that the different national conditions can be taken into account in a better way. We consider therefore that a reasoned opinion should be submitted to the Commission, the Council, and Parliament.
Madam Speaker! I hereby move for approval of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.