An improved travel guarantee system

Björn Tidland (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today the Committee on Civil Affairs is debating Report 2025/26:CU10 with the heading An improved travel guarantee system.

Mr. Speaker! Consumer protection is important and must be regulated by law. When a product you have purchased in a store does not meet your expectations or simply does not work, you as a consumer have very good protection through Swedish legislation. You can return a defective product and get your money back.

Naturally, this shall also apply to travel, and therefore we have a travel guarantee act, which will be updated as a result of today's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! The legislative changes strengthen consumer protection while costs and administration are reduced for the travel industry. It is, in other words, a win-win situation.

Briefly, it can be said that the legislative changes mean that a collective fund is established so that small travel companies do not need to go bankrupt or be disproportionately hard hit if a bus gets a flat tire or if there should be a snowstorm and the trip is cancelled.

Mr. Speaker! How is this intended to work? Since the fund is not allowed to burden the state finances, it will be built up gradually. The fund will have a capital of 1.5 billion kronor and will be built up by the travel companies charging a fee of 0.6 percent of the ticket price. It will take several years to build up the fund, and as the capital is built up, the travel companies' own travel guarantees will decrease. This collective travel guarantee fund will be administered by an appropriate authority, to be determined at a later date.

Mr. Speaker! The Resegarantilagen is designated 2018:1218 and will be improved in a number of points through the submitted proposal. The amendments mean that a number of paragraphs will receive new wording and that eight new paragraphs are introduced. And not only that, but three paragraphs will also cease to apply. All changes are described in the report and are proposed to enter into force on 1 April 2026.

The Sweden Democrats consider the government's proposal to be well-considered and processed. A majority of the Committee on Civil Affairs also stands behind the government's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the Committee on Civil Affairs' proposal in the report.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that we Social Democrats stand behind the majority of this proposal. We want to modernize the travel guarantee. We naturally want a collective fund. We want stronger protection for travelers. We also think it is good that refund requirements and vouchers are finally covered. It is right, it is reasonable, and it is necessary.

The pandemic taught us how vulnerable the system was. Ordinary people who had done everything right – who had saved, booked and paid – suddenly stood there without receiving a single krona back. Companies, often family businesses, that had worked for decades stood on the brink of ruin. We agree that the system must be strengthened.

But here is the important part, Mr. Speaker: We do not agree with the government regarding the construction of the fund. The government wants the fund to grow slowly, year after year, until it reaches 1.5 billion kronor. In the meantime, individual guarantees shall remain, but to a lesser extent.

It sounds organized and calm when one reads it on paper, but reality is not written on paper. The extended protection does not apply fully until the fund is fully built out, i.e., not before several years. Then we must ask ourselves a simple question: What happens if the crisis comes before the fund is full?

Mr. Speaker! Let me give a picture that many Swedes might recognize themselves in. It could be about a family from Örebro, Malmö, or Härnösand. They have saved all year, or perhaps for several years, to go on a summer trip. It could be that they have managed to get the money for a trip after many tough years.

Suddenly the trip is cancelled, on the same day the children have packed their small backpacks. The family waits for a refund. They might get a voucher, but the fund is not full. The protection does not apply yet. The individual guarantee is not enough. What happens then, Mr. Speaker?

Then the family is once again left there with worry, frustration and uncertainty, which is exactly what we promised during the pandemic they would not have to feel. Security that only exists later – if everything goes perfectly – is not security, it is a hope. Politics cannot be built on hopes.

This is not just about consumers, however, it is also about the companies and the jobs. During the build-up phase, small and large travel companies will have to contribute to the fund, have individual guarantees, and at the same time compete with companies in other EU countries. We all know that the competition is fierce in this industry.

Furthermore, EU rules make it very easy to set up guarantees in other countries. If Sweden's system becomes one of Europe's most expensive during the construction phase, what alternative do companies have but to move from Sweden? This would not happen out of ill will, but because they must survive.

I see that large companies have already started requesting tenders from other countries. Small companies cannot do that; they will probably remain here but with higher costs. We risk breaking the competition and pushing out precisely those companies that create jobs throughout Sweden. For me, this is not responsible.

The government says that a state guarantee would be state funding, but that is not true. A state guarantee is a commitment, not a grant. If it is ever needed, a claim arises against the fund. The industry pays back. That is exactly how it has been done in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.

The government also says that a guarantee would delay the reform, but the government's own model implies that the extended protection only comes into effect once the fund is full, i.e., in several years. It is like saying that you are in a huge hurry to get to work but take the slowest route there. This does not hold up.

What we propose, and what our reservation is about, is simple and reasonable. We propose that the government returns with a proposal that entails that the fund is supplemented with a state guarantee during the construction phase. This guarantee shall be time-limited, fee-based, and repayable. It shall also be phased out on the day the fund is full, i.e., when the fund stands on its own feet.

This is not about the state taking over, but it is about the system functioning from the beginning. It must work from day one, just as in Germany.

Who is this system for? It is for us ordinary people, but it is also for companies, for security and for predictability.

Mr. Speaker! In the end, it is about trust. When people book a trip, they should know that the system holds even if the world does not hold, as it looks like right now. When companies invest, hire, and plan, they should know that the state does not leave them in the lurch during the construction phase.

We Social Democrats say yes to this proposal, but we also say that safety cannot wait for five, seven, or ten years, as some speak of. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! An improved travel guarantee system is something that has been long-awaited after covid and the horrors that then hit companies and people. Both means and companies were lost. I want to assert that the opposition and the government base agree on the starting point in this. We need a travel guarantee fund that is common and collective so that people can get their money back and be able to use it in other ways, so that it does not just disappear if something were to happen.

What there is disagreement about is how the fund should be financed from the beginning, as Denis Begic from the Socialdemokraterna just said. We believe that the travel industry should participate and fund means up to 1.5 billion kronor. This should be done at 0.6 percent of the travel package price.

We believe that it is possible to do so. We also believe that this is the best way. It does not mean that the travel industry needs to have double reins at all times, that is to say both pay into the collective fund and have individually arranged guarantees, but it shall be phased out in a common part. When the fund has more than 300 million, it contributes 20 percent of the cost. When the fund has 600 million, it contributes 40 percent of the cost. In that way, it goes up until there are 1.5 billion in the fund. Then the fund has the responsibility, and then the individually arranged guarantees can be phased out.

In the end, this actually becomes cheaper for the travel industry. I agree that as a consumer one has to pay more during a transition period, but in the end, I believe that this is good for both the consumers and the companies.

It honors the Social Democrats that they are taking this debate in the chamber. Unfortunately, the Center Party, the party that moves for a rejection of the bill and does not want to do any of this, is not here. I think that is a shame. I believe it would have been very good to hear why the Center Party wants to move for a rejection of a proposal regarding something that the entire industry wants. One obviously does not want the state to provide guarantees. I understand that one takes that discussion, but by moving for a rejection of the entire bill, we are going back to the problems we had during covid.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to take the floor, but I felt that I had to get a few things clarified. It concerns the gradual approach, as Member Söder termed it. I think it is completely correct and reasonable. One should, therefore, both have individual guarantees and put in money to build up the fund.

The problem is, as I mentioned, that the travel guarantees do not apply until the fund is fully built up. The Government writes in its bill that it can take five years to build up the fund. That means five years of uncertainty during the build-up phase when people do not know whether they will receive their vouchers or not, or whether they will get back the money they have paid or not. The industry says it can take eight or perhaps even ten years, depending on what happens.

I just want to say clearly and plainly that the fund does not apply until it is fully built out. Individual guarantees are claimed first. This stands clearly and plainly in the government's proposal. My question is whether the Christian Democrats and Larry Söder are aware that the fund will pay out first when it is fully built out, not successively, as the member said.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall read out the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 2025/26:CU10. On page 6 it states: "The requirements for individually arranged guarantees according to the current regulatory framework shall, according to the government's proposal, be reduced in proportion to the building up of the travel guarantee fund. The individually arranged guarantees shall, according to the proposal, be lowered as follows:"

with 20 percent when the fund amounts to 300 million kronor

with 40 percent when the fund amounts to 600 million kronor

with 60 percent when the fund amounts to 900 million kronor

with 80 percent when the fund amounts to 1.2 billion kronor.

It stands clearly and explicitly in the report.

Then I agree with the member that one may pay double, but I still believe that this is the way the fund can be built up. In the long run, this is better both for the industry and for the individual.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Söder, for the answer!

I believe we have misunderstood each other. I am talking about the travel guarantees, i.e., when one receives what I mentioned, including vouchers. They only apply once the fund is fully built out. One takes the money from the millions that are paid in, but they might not be enough for the first year. They might not be enough for year two. They might also not be enough for year three. What happens then, if there were to be a new pandemic, is that the state would once again be forced to step in and both rescue companies and pay back to individuals, just as happened during the pandemic.

Is it not better that we set out the guarantees already now and that the fund pays back the money to the state successively, as it is expanded? For me, it now appears as a double punishment for both travelers and companies. My greatest concern, and what I hear when I talk to people in the industry, is that several companies are currently looking at moving from Sweden.

I have never perceived that the Christian Democrats or Member of Parliament Larry Söder think it is good for companies to move from Sweden. I do not either. Therefore, I think the government in just this case – during the construction phase – is doing wrong. It could have been constructed in a different way so that the state's budget would not be burdened.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The extra fee we are talking about is 0.6 percent of the price of the package tour. I cannot believe for my life that the companies take it themselves, but rather I believe that it is added to the price for the consumer. It is therefore the consumers who will have to pay it at the other end.

I believe that this will be an affordable part of reaching the final goal, which is that we shall have a collective fund that bears the responsibility, which we would have needed, for example, during the covid-19 pandemic.

Then one can always discuss whether it should be a state guarantee or not, but we have come to the conclusion that it should not be. We believe that this will work when there are individual insurances that cover that part. It states clearly and distinctly how this shall be handled.

I still think it is a good proposal from the government. I believe that it will work and that it will be better for the companies in the future. But I agree that it is clear that there will be a bit of work in the beginning, but it will rectify itself when the fund starts being filled up.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

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