Effective sanctions within aviation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD supports the committee's proposal to modernize the sanctions system within aviation to ensure safety and legal certainty 1. V considers that the government lacks a solid basis that justifies the change and describes its consequences 2 3. M considers that the proposal is well-motivated and necessary for the state to be able to act swiftly in extraordinary circumstances or threats to public safety 4 5 6. KD argues that the government has implemented positive changes for aviation 7. KD considers it good that the laws are tightened to handle aviation offenses and that the government must be able to act if there are threats to the airspace 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD)
Madam Speaker! Aviation is part of the lifeblood that binds Sweden together from north to south, from our major cities to the most sparsely populated areas. It makes it possible to travel, to trade, to save lives, and to defend our country when required.
With that significance, Madam Speaker, follows also a responsibility – a responsibility for security, for clear rules and for the state actually being able to act when something goes wrong. It is precisely this that the submitted proposal is about: effective sanctions within aviation.
We Sverigedemokrater stand behind the committee's proposal. For this, Madam Speaker, is an important step forward. It is modern legislation for a modern time and for a new reality. Aviation today does not look like it did 10–15 years ago. We have received new types of flight operations, not least through drones and unmanned aircraft, which are used in everything from rescue services to agriculture but unfortunately also, Madam Speaker, for illegal purposes.
At the same time, we live in an era with new threat images: sabotage, unauthorized surveillance, and security risks from other countries. Despite this, the legislation has long lagged behind. But now, Madam Speaker, we are modernizing the sanctions system. We ensure that violations of EU aviation rules also carry consequences under Swedish law.
Madam Speaker! There should be no gray areas. No one should be able to break the rules without consequences. It is about the rule of law, about order and tidiness, and ultimately about safety. It is about clearer responsibilities and sharper sanctions.
It is also important that the submitted proposal clarifies what is counted as negligence and when a crime should be judged as aggravated. In a sector where safety is absolutely crucial and where the smallest mistake can have devastating consequences, the boundaries must be clear. Those who handle aviation, manned or unmanned, must know that the rules apply and that there will be consequences if they are broken. It is not about harshness, Madam Speaker, it is about respect – respect for life, for safety, and for the responsibility that comes with handling aviation.
I want to specifically highlight drones and unmanned systems. Here, the technology has outpaced the law. Drones can be of great use, but they can also create great risks. We have seen drones at protected sites and airports and near military areas. It is not acceptable. With these legislative changes, Madam Speaker, authorities will receive better tools to intervene and clearer rules for liability. It strengthens both our national security and everyday safety.
I also want to say a few words about the Left Party's follow-up motion. The Left Party expresses great concern that, according to the proposal, the government could be able to introduce flight bans over the entire country in certain extraordinary situations and argues that it risks becoming an overreach.
Let me be clear, Madam Speaker. It is not about stopping airplanes on a whim. It is about preparedness and security, and about being able to act quickly if Sweden is subjected to a serious threat or a crisis. If the government, in such a situation, were not to have legal support to act, it would truly be irresponsible.
We live in a time of increased tensions in our immediate vicinity with cyber threats, hybrid influence, disinformation, and the risk of aviation being exploited for these purposes. In that case, the state must have tools to act and not stand helpless. The decisions must, of course, be proportionate, time-limited, and based on clear threat assessments. The government has also ensured this. To question this, as the Vänsterpartiet does, rather shows that one has not fully understood how quickly a threat can develop and how important it is to be able to act immediately.
Madam Speaker! This is fundamentally about Sweden having a safe, efficient and fair aviation. We must be able to trust that rules are followed, that there are consequences when they are not followed and that the state has tools to protect people and society-critical functions. The submitted proposal strengthens this system. It modernizes, clarifies and creates a safer structure for the future.
We Sweden Democrats believe that the Riksdag should say yes to the government's bill. A strong and capable state is not a problem; it is a prerequisite for security. We live in a time where responsible politics must take precedence over symbolic politics. This bill is an example of exactly that. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Effective sanctions in aviation. It is a report that handles a proposition, that is, a bill from the government. The proposition contains several different parts that have an impact on aviation in different ways. It is about wanting to both harmonize regulations in the area and tighten provisions for, among other things, negligence in air traffic.
In addition to this, it is also desired to expand the government's mandate to decide on flight bans in parts of or the whole country if required for the sake of public safety. The government can do this already today, but in that case, it is done through regulations.
In the current legislation, the Aviation Act Chapter 1, Section 8, it states that the government may issue regulations on temporary restrictions of or prohibitions on aviation within the entire country. If an extraordinary situation or a crisis situation were to arise, this type of decision may need to be made, and there is also a possibility to expedite the process. There is a possibility to quickly prepare and decide on new regulations.
The Government also notes that this possibility exists. But now, it is intended to go further by removing the requirement for regulations. This is the difference between current legislation and upcoming legislation.
Why does the government want to make this change? What is it that does not work with the current legislation? It does not appear from the underlying material. There is no clear justification for the change. There is also a lack of an analysis of what effects the proposal could have in practice, and there is a lack of an account of what considerations the government has made that have led to the conclusion of the proposal.
It also does not appear when decisions are to be made in this way. It states that it can be done in individual cases, but what does that mean? Will the norm be that this type of decision is made through regulations, even if this possibility is written in? We do not know that. There are, therefore, absolutely several parts of the proposal that would have needed to be highlighted and clarified.
Madam Speaker! I also want to be clear that we do not move for a rejection of what is proposed in the bill. We also do not question that there may be a need to design the legislation in this way. However, in order to be able to determine if it is actually needed, a better basis is required that justifies the change and describes its consequences, which we also requested in our follow-up motion. The government therefore chooses not to do so, and I think that is a pity.
That there is a solid basis for a decision is an important principle. Governments come and go, but that principle should endure.
With this, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation.
Oskar Svärd (M)
Madam Speaker! Within aviation, there are both international and national regulations. These regulations make a clear distinction between civil and state aviation. State aviation is, in turn, divided into military aviation and other aviation used for state purposes.
The Swedish national regulatory framework for aviation primarily consists of the Aviation Act, the Aviation Ordinance, and the Swedish Transport Agency's regulations. The Aviation Act and the Aviation Ordinance contain provisions on the scope of application, detailed rules for aviation, and provisions on penalties.
Since the Aviation Act and the Aviation Ordinance were introduced, it has been noted during their application that there is a need for adjustments and additions. There is also a need for amendments to the Aviation Act so that it becomes clear that the Act complements EU regulations.
Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government has made great efforts for aviation in Sweden and for communications with other countries. Aviation is an important part for Sweden as a country, but also for Sweden's competitiveness.
The bill we are debating today may seem very technical. That may be the case, but it concerns important parts for increased safety in connection with aviation and our air transport. There is now a proposal on the table which, among other things, means that the person who, through negligence, commits an act of recklessness in aviation that is not minor shall be held criminally liable. The person who performs a task as an observer during the use of an unmanned aircraft shall be able to be convicted of recklessness in aviation. It shall also be clarified in which situations an act shall be judged as a gross crime. Furthermore, the law is now tightened so that a person outside an aircraft, and in a service related to a flight, performs a task of essential importance for aviation safety, shall be able to be convicted of aviation intoxication if the person is under the influence of alcohol or any other substance.
Madam Speaker! The Government shall be able, in an individual case, to decide on temporary restrictions of or prohibitions on aviation within the entire country. Such a decision may only concern restrictions or prohibitions that are needed due to extraordinary circumstances or otherwise are required for the sake of public safety. A possibility such as the one I just mentioned already exists today, but at present, it is communicated through regulations. The difference with the new proposal, which is on the table today, is that regulations shall not always be required.
There is also a difference between making restrictions or applying bans on aviation within certain parts of the country and closing the airspace over the entire country. The requirements are higher when it concerns decisions affecting the whole country. The intention is, again, that the possibility shall exist in urgent situations. It can also be mentioned here that the Armed Forces are positive towards the proposal on the table and that it therefore does not lead to conflict with interests within the total defense.
Madam Speaker! Yesterday, Belgium's airspace was closed completely or partially on two occasions due to drone alarms. We have also seen that our neighboring country Denmark has been forced to act in the same way in the recent past. We live in a changing and restless time. War is ongoing in our vicinity. It requires that we are well-equipped to protect and maintain Sweden's security.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank Oskar Svärd for the speech.
I am grateful that the member touched upon parts of our follow-up motion. I want to clarify once again that we do not move for a rejection of what is proposed in the bill. We also see that there may be a need for this type of regulation, but then one needs to justify the regulation. The difference is, as said, that one gives the government an expanded mandate to make this type of decisive decision that severely limits accessibility without regulations.
We in Vänsterpartiet are not alone in having these types of objections, as they have also been raised by a number of referral bodies. These also demanded a more detailed basis. Instead of taking this to heart, the government chose, after the referral round, to repeat the same arguments as those in the original proposal.
I think this is unfortunate. One should be eager to ensure that there is a good basis where consequences are well described and where changes are justified.
I would like to ask the member a question regarding what he said about sharper requirements being set when it comes to flight bans within the entire country. This is correct if one relates it to what is called restriction areas. Several reasons are also specified there. They have specified which reasons shall apply for decisions on restriction areas to be able to be made. The difference when it comes to flight bans within the entire country is that such a decision shall be made if it is required for the sake of public safety, which is a very broad concept. I would like to argue that the difference is rather that it has not been defined in the same way as it has been done when it comes to restriction areas. It would be very interesting to hear the member's view on this.
Oskar Svärd (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the members for the questions and comments regarding my speech.
Unlike the member, I think that the proposal provides a very good justification for why the government should now be able to close the airspace over the entire country without regulations. In my speech, I said the following: Such a decision shall only be allowed to involve restrictions or prohibitions that are necessary due to extraordinary circumstances or otherwise required for the sake of public safety. I think that is sufficient for the government to be able to be quick-footed in these types of matters.
As I mentioned, war is taking place in our vicinity. This requires that we are well-equipped to protect and maintain Sweden's security. This is part of that work. We have seen that our neighboring countries and other countries in Europe have been forced to quickly close parts of the airspace or the entire airspace. In that case, it is a matter of being able to be quick-footed.
When it comes to the differences between restriction areas, that is to say parts of our airspace, and the country's entire airspace, it is very clear both in the bill and in the laws I referred to – the Aviation Act and the Aviation Ordinance – what it is about. It is clear that there is a difference in degree depending on whether one is to shut down a certain restriction area or shut down the airspace over the entire country, and therefore different approaches were needed in those decisions.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! I think we may not get much further, but I am nevertheless grateful for the member's answer where he elaborated on this.
I said in my speech that this is a matter of principle for me. Sitting in the government entails a great responsibility that must be taken seriously. That responsibility includes ensuring that there is a solid basis before decisions are made and that the consequences are well-illuminated, and that must not be compromised. This has also been expressed by us in our follow-up motion and also by several referral bodies, and that the government chooses not to take note of the views that exist, I find a bit alarming. But here we surely differ.
Oskar Svärd (M)
Madam Speaker! I welcome those who are now entering the gallery. We are now debating the report Effective sanctions in aviation, and you can check the debate in retrospect since you missed the beginning.
The member's statement that we do not have the same view on the substantive issue is correct, specifically linked to the fact that the government did not make a change before the bill was submitted. It is probably about the fact that the referral bodies had very different views. I mentioned in my statement that the Armed Forces had no objections while other referral bodies did. The government has since made a collective assessment before submitting a new legislative proposal.
I do not intend to repeat my speech. I believe the proposal is well-motivated and necessary. The government must be able to act quickly in acute events.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The Government has implemented a number of changes that are positive for aviation. The aviation tax has been removed, owners of airports are encouraged to review the travel rules themselves so that they use the aircraft they own, and support for municipal and regional airports has been increased – all this with the aim that aviation should function as national and international public transport.
At the same time as the government facilitates aviation, new rules are now being presented aimed at ensuring that Sweden has safe aviation. The legislative changes in this bill involve, among other things, the introduction of more effective sanctions within the aviation sector.
Under extraordinary circumstances or when otherwise required for the sake of public safety, it is proposed that the government shall also in the future be permitted to issue regulations on temporary restrictions of or prohibitions against aviation within the entire country and, furthermore, also in individual cases be permitted to decide on temporary restrictions of or prohibitions against aviation within the entire country.
According to the proposal, negligence in air traffic that is not gross can form the basis for liability, and it is also clarified when an offense is to be judged as gross. A person who, while intoxicated, performs a task of essential importance for aviation safety outside an aircraft can, according to the proposal, be convicted of aviation drunkenness to a greater extent than with the current regulatory framework. I was a little surprised by the last point when I read the report, because I took for granted that people are to be sober at work.
Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, it is clear that security always comes first. Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs does not belong either in or near an aircraft or an airport. It is therefore good that these laws are now being tightened. It is also clear that the government must be able to act if there are threats or dangers that justify closing down all or parts of our airspace.
Madam Speaker! I am reminded of when I sat in the Riksdag in 2001 and the plane flew into New York. At that time, the entire world's airspace was closed. Furthermore, various units are now being attacked with drones in Ukraine, and we see how the drone threat is increasing also in other places in Europe.
Madam Speaker! I therefore naturally 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.