Response to interpellation 2024/25:377 on measures to facilitate the work of the Swedish Customs Service
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that the government has given Tullverket sharper tools, more money and new legislation to strengthen security and control activities 1 2 3. M argues that the agency should conduct the dialogue with neighboring countries and that cooperation solves the issue 2 3. S argues that the new armament has created practical problems as customs officers cannot cross borders 4. S believes that the Minister for Finance fails in political responsibility by delegating the issue to the agency 4 5. S demands that the government follow up on the legislation and take responsibility for follow-up problems 5 6. S argues that customs officers have problems with traveling for several hours to change border control 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked me what I intend to do to solve the problems that have arisen at the borders with our Nordic neighbors.
The question is posed against the background that the government has decided on several new powers and tools for Customs Service officials. The question specifically concerns the fact that the Customs Service has decided that customs officials may now carry service weapons in more situations than before.
I want to begin by fully agreeing with Patrik Björck – we must crush organized crime. Here, our customs officers play a decisive role, as they are on the front line in the work against the criminal economy and organized crime.
That is why the government has decided on sharper tools that have increased the safety of customs officers, strengthened their control activities, and improved the Swedish Customs' crime-fighting. It is also very welcome that the Swedish Customs, among other things following a mandate from the government, has decided that customs officers may carry weapons in more situations than before.
The regulations regarding the arming of customs officers differ somewhat in the Nordic countries. It is, of course, problematic if it hinders the possibility for our customs officers to carry weapons. I have, however, inquired about the issue with Tullverket, which informed me that a close dialogue is now being held with the customs authorities in our nearest neighboring countries. We will have to see what the dialogue results in.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.
We partially agree that it is important to facilitate the customs' important work, but there are some questions remaining. I have posed questions to the Minister for Finance based on the reality that is described, among other things, in an article in Svenska Dagbladet. It states there: "Uniformed customs personnel who perform checks at the borders were granted the right to carry a service pistol this year. But the new armament has not only provided the desired protective effect for the customs officers – it also means that they cannot cross the borders to our neighboring countries."
There are also some examples of what can happen out at our borders. A customs officer testifies in the following way: "If I have stood at a border crossing and am going to the next one, the nearest route can be to drive into Norway and then get back. You can save hours by not having to drive into Sweden." This he can no longer do. "The Swedish customs officers can no longer either drive across the Öresund Bridge and hop on the train at Kastrup to check trains heading into Sweden. – – – The customs personnel must instead perform checks first on the Swedish side, which can be more difficult."
There is, therefore, a very concrete background to the issue. Even though we agree that it is important to use the customs service in the fight against organized crime, as the Minister for Finance says in her answer, practical problems still arise, something that I have asked the Minister for Finance about. To that, she answered as follows: ”The regulations regarding the arming of customs officers differ slightly in the Nordic countries. It is obviously problematic if it hinders the possibility for our customs officers to carry weapons. I have, however, inquired about the issue with the Swedish Customs, which has informed that a close dialogue is now being held with the customs authorities in our nearest neighboring countries. We will have to see what the dialogue results in.”
I am becoming a bit concerned here. It does not seem that the Minister for Finance intends to take any active part in solving the problem that has arisen. She has created a situation that has caused the authorities to end up in a predicament. Therefore, it is thought that it is the Minister for Finance's role as political head of the authority – which falls under the Ministry of Finance – to take an active part in solving the problem.
To provide a small piece of evidence on how one could work, I would like to bring up a corresponding question that was asked by a member of the Nordic Council. It was asked to the Norwegian Minister of Justice and concerned police cooperation. This is, therefore, not an identical question but a similar one. The question read: "How can we ensure that police cooperation is both developed and strengthened, while it occurs in accordance with and in respect of national laws?"
When the Norwegian minister was asked the question by a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Nordic Council, the answer was as follows: ”Jeg vil være beredt til å be om Stortingets samtykke til et styrket samarbeid om min svenske kollega og jeg blir enige om at vi ønsker å styrke samarbeidet på områder hvor gjennomføring vil kreve lovendringer eller annet stortingsvedtak.”
Let me make a brief summary. The Norwegian minister envisions an immediate political intervention. Faced with similar problems, he thinks that the Norwegian government should take action, that he should involve the Norwegian parliament, and that it is important to resolve the issue. But when the Swedish minister, Madam Speaker, receives a corresponding question in the Swedish Riksdag, she hands it over with a warm hand to the authorities and hopes and believes that it can be resolved.
It shows a lack of commitment and political responsibility. Therefore, I want to ask my question once more: What does the Minister for Finance intend to do to solve the problems that have arisen at the borders with our Nordic neighbors?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck and I entered the Riksdag at the same time. Now Patrik Björck seems to think that I have become a bit too meek and weak in my formulations. Naturally, that cannot be the case. This is important.
Patrik Björck argues that we have created this situation. But what we have created is a situation that makes it safer and more secure for Swedish customs officers to perform a very tough job. They are now allowed to have weapons to a significantly greater extent. We have ensured that they receive resources in the form of entirely new legislation that gives them better powers. We have sent much more money to the agency so that it can grow and do what it is set to do.
I know that Patrik Björck and I share the view of the Customs Service's importance. But the point here is that we do not have ministerial rule in Sweden – I do not know if there is anyone here who would wish for it – but in this case, it is the authority that is to have a dialogue.
When the Riksdag made the decision on this legislation, and also when the possibility for customs officers to be armed was introduced, it was known that it looks different in the different countries.
How does one solve this then? Well, from the Customs Service's side, a dialogue is now being conducted with the other authorities in our neighboring countries to arrive at a good solution. That is often how we solve problems in Sweden. Sometimes it is good for a finance minister to get involved, and sometimes perhaps the heads of the agencies can handle this better.
My point, Madam Speaker, is that we have given the police both resources and tools to do the very important work they do at the front line to combat crime. It is a more dangerous job today than it was 10, 15, or 20 years ago, and therefore they are given precisely these tools, including weaponry.
Of course, this should also be resolved between our countries. I am completely convinced that this will happen, because that is how it usually works in the Nordic countries: We solve things together, and we understand each other.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not think anyone would consider it to be ministerial rule if the Swedish Minister for Finance took note of the Norwegian minister's answer: that they want to strengthen cooperation with their Swedish colleagues, that is to say the Swedish government, as well as cooperation between the Norwegian Storting and the Swedish Riksdag. I do not think anyone could interpret this as ministerial rule. Not even the most stubborn KU member could draw that conclusion. We only want, Madam Speaker, to raise the question of how the Minister for Finance intends to act politically from his position.
I know – I sit on the Customs Authority's oversight council – that the authority is working to solve all the problems that arise, this one and many others. It is obviously the authority's task. The head of the authority's task is to take in the problems that exist out in the field and solve them based on their own resources; that is a given. What I am requesting here is not the head of the authority's answer to the questions, but the politically responsible minister's answer to the questions. That is what is important.
In addition to this problem, that one cannot fully carry out their work with the important new rules regarding armament, these types of situations will continue to arise. We have a continued serious situation regarding drug smuggling, as can be read in Customs' reports and annual reports. Customs needs to strengthen its digital capability and its ability to handle an extensive trade flow as a result of e-commerce. We have a worrying world with a higher threat level, which places Customs before new requirements to be able to act. As recently as today, I believe it was, the new bill was submitted to the Riksdag, with proposals for a new crime regarding the export of stolen goods. This gives Customs new important tasks to handle.
All these are challenges that Tullverket will have and which I, Madam Speaker, and the Minister for Finance agree are important to tackle. It is important that these tasks are received and that the new customs legislation has been received to facilitate the work. But Tullverket also needs support from politics – from the responsible minister and from the government – and it could then be demanded that the government fulfills its responsibility and actually governs. That the government follows up, allocates resources, follows up on the legislation and sees if there is any reason to act, I do not think, Madam Speaker, is an unreasonable demand from the Riksdag.
I want to ask the government what is to be done now when there are testimonies that the urgent new legislation, the urgent new mandates, and the urgent new resources are in place, but that Tullverket has been faced with a new situation. In that case, I do not think, Madam Speaker, that it is sufficient to refer to the fact that one has inquired about the issue with Tullverket, which informs that a close dialogue is now being held with the customs authorities in our nearest neighboring countries.
We shall see – that is the government's attitude when it comes to solving important societal problems. I would much rather see the government take responsibility and follow up politically. One is responsible for Agency Sweden. It is not ministerial rule to ensure that the agencies act fully in accordance with the legislation that we have jointly decided upon here in the Riksdag. There are no differences of opinion there, but the demand I make here today concerns responsibility and governing competence.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck speaks of responsibility for Sweden. The only reason I became politically active at all is that I wanted to take responsibility – and I do. It is interesting to hear Patrik Björck say that he now does not feel that this government is doing so. In opposition, we took responsibility for Tullverket. We ensured that Tullverket received more money when we made changes to the Socialdemokraternas budgets so that Tullverket would receive the money that was needed.
This government has now given the Swedish Customs Service sharper tools – entirely new legislation that makes it easier to both combat crime and make seizures. This government has also ensured that the authority has received more money to be able to combat the criminal economy and crime. We have also now, Madam Speaker, presented a proposal that criminalizes the export of stolen goods through an entirely new crime.
The Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Customs Service, and the Swedish Enforcement Authority have also received a common goal to work towards in order to join forces against the criminal economy. The Swedish Tax Agency is conducting a population count, and the Swedish Enforcement Authority has been given the opportunity to perform remote seizures.
The list can be long regarding what this government has done in two and a half years. Are we satisfied? Absolutely not, there is much more to do. And we are doing more. One way is to, as now, give Tullverket greater powers.
I am completely convinced that this issue will be resolved by the authorities in our neighboring countries. That is how we work in the Nordic countries: We see problems, both the politicians and the civil servants, and we solve them together. And we provide the conditions to make the customs officers significantly more protected.
This question may recur further ahead – I do not know. I believe it will be resolved relatively soon by the various authorities in the neighboring countries. We shall not back down when it comes to Swedish customs officers being allowed to be armed when they do a very important and tough job for us others, under great uncertainty. This every customs officer can rely on.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I do not think that the management of the Swedish Customs or the officials, the customs officers, fully recognize themselves in the description that this government is not supporting and doing what is needed. On the contrary – at a high pace, we are now ensuring that Sweden becomes safer and wealthier.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! The list can be long, says the Minister for Finance. I would say that the list can be long regarding things that the Minister for Finance promised during the election campaign but then has no idea at all about implementing.
The census is one such thing. One went to the election on the promise to carry out a large-scale census in this country. The Finance Minister brought this up himself, so that is why I comment on it, Madam Speaker, even though it is a bit far from the area. The census is a typical example from the long list I could bring up in another interpellation debate regarding all the government's betrayals of the election promises they made.
But the question today was, Madam Speaker: Is it not reasonable that a government, if it gives an authority new powers and new legislation, follows up and sees what happens in this new reality? Do follow-up problems arise? Is there reason for the government to act? It is this that I am asking for.
It is obviously the individual authority's responsibility to act based on the reality that exists. But now customs officers testify that they have problems – they have to travel for several hours to be able to change border control at the long Swedish-Norwegian border – and that the government is not working actively to solve this. Swedish customs officers also cannot travel over to the Danish side of the Öresund Bridge to conduct efficient customs work – testimony is given to this. Is it then reasonable for the responsible minister to say "we shall see"? I do not think so. I do not know what those listening to this debate think.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
The Minister for Finance waives his concluding remarks.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.