Airport operators' costs for security checks

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not every day that we Social Democrats urge approval of the government's proposals in reports, but in this case, we do.

While several of us enjoyed the calm of empty streets and the stillness in the air during the pandemic, the airports cried out for help. They were open for both the aviation that still occurred and that which was completely necessary from a societal preparedness perspective during the crisis. As we know, revenues from air traffic fell drastically, which left a large hole in the economy, especially for the airlines.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a large and elongated country. From Kiruna to Ystad, we need an efficient and accessible aviation network. But the revenues to the fee equalization system decreased sharply when air traffic decreased, and since aviation safety is regulated at a global level, it was not possible, for example, to reduce or simplify the security controls. The airlines continued to pay for the security controls. It was necessary to keep our country's airports open to ensure that even the most remote parts of Sweden would be accessible to us all.

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, under the Social Democratic government, the aviation industry was stimulated with various tools to accelerate the climate transition and promote new innovations within the aviation industry, especially when it was toughest for society during the pandemic years. The Social Democratic government granted credit guarantees to aviation, gave extraordinary support to the regional airports, introduced general traffic obligation, expanded the number of emergency airports, and increased the support to the emergency airports. Various investments were also made with state resources to promote electric aviation.

The Social Democrats welcome this committee report and the proposals contained therein and see it as an investment in societal preparedness, in the people who live in the less populated parts of our country, and in an economy that needs aviation to function. But we also need to take the climate into account. We must transition, and we must do it quickly. We can no longer lean back and let others take the lead. We must take the helm ourselves. Especially against the background of yesterday's election results, we see that the climate issue is important for the Swedes.

We must invest in research and development of sustainable fuels. We must ensure that we become leaders in the transition towards fossil-free aviation. We cannot just hope that the technology will develop, but we must ourselves take responsibility for driving the development forward.

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

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Kadir Kasirga for the speech.

In one respect, I agree with the member regarding the circumstances concerning the deficit that has been created in the fee equalization system. The common fee equalization system for security screening of passengers and their baggage, the so-called GAS system, however, means that the costs for security screening of all Swedish security-approved airports are accumulated and distributed per departing passenger. This fee has therefore not been paid by the airlines yet, but has instead ended up with Transportstyrelsen. The Government wants to open a door in the legislation to enable compensation with state funds.

The proposal for this legislative amendment was submitted by the former red-green government on 22 April 2022. During the corona pandemic, Norway and other countries chose to remove this cost, but the red-green government chose to retain the fee for security checks. That is why we have ended up in this situation. Why did the former red-green government not choose the same path as Norway and other countries? Why was it not chosen to abolish this fee during the pandemic period?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rashid Farivar for the question.

As I mentioned in the introduction of my speech, the security checks are regulated at a global level. We welcome this report. We would have done the same and paid out this support to the airports - perhaps not at the same level, and perhaps not with the same model, but we would still have paid it out.

Some modes of transport do pay for the infrastructure they use, so it is not strange that the airlines do so. This applies especially now when we are talking about climate issues and see how important they are for the voters. In the election yesterday, we saw that they are very important.

We do not think it is any strange thing that one pays for oneself.

Of course there are questions, for example when it concerns how the country's airports are organized and when it concerns regional airports versus state airports. This is another discussion that we could have in order to try to find a common view.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank member Kadir Kasirga for the answer.

I hope the member has read the bill. It is there that it states how this system works. The rules for security checks are regulated at a global level, but each individual state decides for itself who shall pay for it all. Is it the state or the passengers who shall pay? It is absolutely not the airlines that pay this fee. This is a fee that is collected by the Transport Agency, which then invoices the airlines. The airlines pay back the same money they received from the passengers to the Transport Agency. What the member is presenting now is therefore, in principle, incorrect.

I do not understand what the accumulated deficit has to do with the climate. This deficit was accumulated during the corona pandemic due to the circumstances that prevailed during the pandemic. There was no traffic, but the controls were running.

The government is now taking responsibility due to a memorandum that was submitted during the previous - red-green - government and is assisting with state funds.

What does the bill have to do with the climate? It has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. It is about a deficit where the government wants to help to pay. Please enlighten me, Member Kadir Kasirga, as to what this has to do with the climate!

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank member Rashid Farivar for the questions.

As I mentioned in my speech, we would have done the same and paid the deficit. We might have chosen a different model when it comes to the actual distribution of the money, but we basically believe that it is right to pay the deficit.

It does not surprise me that the Sweden Democrats are unable to understand that we have climate challenges on our planet and our continent. The Sweden Democrats have indeed tried to undermine both the EU's and Sweden's climate policy. The Swedes have, however, shown that they stand up for a common sustainable future and that they want the politicians to take the climate challenges seriously. But I hear that the Sweden Democrats are not quite there yet.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Emissions are increasing sharply starting this year due to the government's pursued policy. When the Green Party was in government, emissions decreased every year, and now they are increasing, as stated, sharply. For the first time in 20 years or more, we have a government that deliberately and actively makes decisions that lead to a sharp increase in emissions of climate-damaging gases.

Aviation as a means of transport obviously has advantages. One can travel very long distances in a short time. But this debate is, in my opinion, not about being for or against aviation as a means of transport, but about priorities and the climate. The problem with aviation is that it is still 99 percent dependent on fossil fuels – an energy source that we need to phase out in order to reach the climate goals.

Let me remind you that climate policy is not something we do for the sake of the climate, but to protect ordinary people from the dangerous consequences of climate change, something that many are affected by already today, both in Sweden and around the world. The policy must take responsibility and steer away from that which exacerbates the climate threat and invest in that which is sustainable.

The emissions from the combined Swedish aviation, both national and international, correspond to approximately the emissions from all Swedish road traffic. Unlike other sectors, aviation does not pay for its emissions; instead, there are tax exemptions amounting to billions of kronor every year, even when accounting for today's aviation tax and airport fees. Aviation pays no fuel tax, no energy taxes, and no carbon tax. Aviation also has exemptions from certain VAT and often flies from publicly subsidized airports.

Mr. Speaker! Covid-19 hit hard against many different sectors in society, and many have still not fully recovered. Everything from tourism to public transport lost large revenues, but far from everyone has been fully compensated - despite the fact that we released very much money during two years, closer to 400 billion.

The aviation sector also obviously lost a lot of revenue. In response to that, regional airports received 100 million in operating support from the previous government. The Tidö government has announced that the operating support to municipal airports with contracted traffic and to the so-called standby airports will be increased from 103 million to 210 million. Over 200 million tax kronor have already been added to the aviation industry. Now, through its bill, the government opens up for further subsidies, this time in the billions.

The Green Party does not see further state support for the aviation sector as more of a priority than money for, for example, healthcare and public transport. I am not fundamentally opposed to support for the aviation sector, but in that case, the support should go towards the aviation transition. Why is 1 billion not given to support the development of electric aviation or 1 billion to accelerate the development of hydrogen-powered aviation? We have leading companies that develop these technologies in Sweden, or rather, would have. A leading company in Gothenburg that develops electric aviation has stated that they are moving their development to the USA because they do not receive enough support in Sweden.

I am definitely a technology optimist, and I really hope that we will see a rapid and powerful development of all fossil-free technologies within the transport sector, including aviation. But then one must commit to supporting what is sustainable and make targeted investments to accelerate this development. At the same time, one needs to be realistic. We know that it will take time to transition the aviation sector, replace aircraft, and get new technology in place.

It is always about priorities when our common resources are to be distributed. A review from SVT shows that the price of bus and train tickets has increased much faster than, for example, the price of gasoline. Yet it is precisely fossil fuels that the government is investing in. Now, an additional 1 billion is being invested in fossil-fueled aviation, and they are also signaling a halved or perhaps removed aviation tax. At the same time, they have cut the appropriations to public transport.

The price of public transport can be an important issue, but it is the regions' responsibility. It is not my task to have views on this, said Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson. The logic is not crystal clear. Why would it be the government's responsibility to support aviation but not the government's responsibility to keep down the price of public transport for all those who depend on traveling by public transport, which is very many people? The latest SOM survey shows that as much as 74 percent of Swedes are positive towards investing more state money in expanding public transport.

Another area that would really need more support is the Swedish railway. During the winter, Sweden had worse punctuality on trains than in war-torn Ukraine, so here we are talking about needs that should really be prioritized. But instead, the government is planning further support for aviation. It is not about support for a sustainable transition of aviation, but about general support for fossil-fueled aviation and, furthermore, halved or removed aviation tax.

A Sifo survey shows that 73 percent of Swedes are positive towards the aviation tax. The idea of letting those who emit more pay more and supporting that which is more sustainable has support among the Swedish population - in terms of having the people's support for their climate policy.

Furthermore, a majority of Swedes are positively or neutrally disposed towards an increased aviation tax. Support for an increase in the aviation tax is greatest in rural areas, according to the SOM Institute, probably for the simple reason that, for example, in a municipality like Danderyd, people fly seven times more than in the rural municipality of Ockelbo.

That is why Miljöpartiet instead wants to allocate these funds and more to make Swedish public transport cheaper, to make the trains function and run on time, and to make it easier for ordinary people to live in a climate-friendly way.

Is it something we should support regarding aviation, it is a sustainable transition. We want, among other things, to support the production of sustainable fuels so that aviation can have the opportunity to transition.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I move for the reservation to be approved.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet and Member Linus Lakso imply that this would be a state subsidy to cover the revenue gap. That is not correct. It is about a state system to pay for our aviation safety.

In Sweden, the state has decided that aviation passengers shall pay for security screening through the flight ticket. The GAS fee goes entirely to the Transport Agency, which has the state's mandate to manage the GAS system. The airlines retain nothing at all; it is not a revenue in the income statement.

It is also fundamentally wrong that future passengers should be burdened with state costs for an infrastructure that they could not or were not allowed to use during the pandemic. In Sweden, one should pay a fee for a service that one utilizes, not for something that one could not or was not allowed to utilize.

We should also note that it was the red-green government that governed Sweden until October 2022 that submitted exactly this proposal, which we are discussing today, to cover the GAS deficit. The proposal was referred in April 2022. The legislative change was to enter into force on 1 January 2023 but was postponed due to the change of government.

It is completely obvious that the Green Party is wrong in claiming that this is about a subsidy to aviation. The Andersson government presented the proposal, and the Green Party was part of that government. Why did the Green Party not oppose that proposal then? Why is it a bad proposal today?

My question to the member is why he distorts reality and tries to say that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is a question of prioritization, which I also raised in my speech. Of course, it will be the case that future passengers in aviation will have to pay if the state does not, but if the state pays, it is the taxpayers who will be the ones paying.

Just as I said in my speech, it is about priorities, and yes, we make different priorities than the government. It is a completely correct analysis. I would rather spend the money on making public transport cheaper and on making the trains work. I would rather spend the money on producing sustainable fuel that aviation can also fly more sustainably on, and I would rather spend the money on accelerating the development of electric aviation, to mention a few examples.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What is important is not what the member says from the rostrum; what is important is what is written in the motion. In the motion, it states that everything from tourism to public transport has lost significant revenues, but that far from all sectors have been granted state subsidies to cover the revenue gap for aviation.

Miljöpartiet says that this is a subsidy to cover the revenue gap. But this is not a revenue. It is a deficit in a system that does not function as it was intended.

Then there was the nagging about enormous subsidies and grants. Approximately 0.75 percent of the state's budget for the transport sector goes to aviation. 1 percent of public subsidies of transport types goes to aviation. About 0.9 billion in public support goes to maintaining aviation's transport infrastructure. Other transport types are distributed a total of 97 billion.

If we look at the price, every Swede pays approximately 90 kronor per year for all aviation infrastructure. This can be compared with just over 9,000 kronor per inhabitant per year for road and railway infrastructure.

The safety requirements for aviation are also very different than for the train or the bus. Imagine if one had the same safety rules for traveling by bus or train.

What I mean is that this is not a subsidy. This is not a grant to cover any revenue gap. Why is the Green Party distorting reality and claiming that this is a grant? This is an investment to make aviation competitive.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite understand why Rashid Farivar is getting so hung up on that word. It is perfectly fine to call it a subsidy if one provides a state support to an industry to reduce costs.

Just as the member mentions, it naturally becomes more competitive with aviation if the state provides this support. Why would it not be possible to call it a subsidy or support? It doesn't matter that much, does it? I actually don't understand why Rashid Farivar thinks it is so important in this debate.

I am probably a bit more interested in debating somewhat broader and larger issues than that, for example how we transition to a sustainable society and how we reduce emissions and meet our climate goals so that we can avoid serious consequences for people in Sweden and around the world, both here and now today but even more in the future. That is where I think the focus should lie.

As mentioned earlier here in the chamber, yesterday's EU election shows very clearly that it is a very important priority for the Swedish voters. 70 percent of Swedes want us to strive harder to reach our climate goals.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a Moderate-led government that sees aviation as an important mode of transport for our country. Sweden also has a government that acts when actual problems arise. We see that now as the effects of a pandemic hit the entire aviation industry hard.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Member is: What is it that is so dangerous about aviation, and why does the Green Party want to place this cost on families with children, business travelers, and others who use aviation?

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Oskar Svärd for the question.

I believe I have explained quite well from the rostrum what the problem with aviation is. It is not any physical formula or that it is not good when it comes to traveling long distances quickly. It does have great advantages as a mode of transport from that perspective.

I would be quite surprised if Oskar Svärd is not aware of what the actual problem with aviation is, namely the emissions of carbon dioxide, including high-altitude effects, that is to say the climate impact.

From a consumption perspective, the Swedes' total climate impact is a fairly large part that one cannot ignore if one wants to reduce emissions.

It is exactly as I mentioned earlier. If the government now wanted to safeguard the aviation sector in the long term, it should be significantly more eager to support a faster transition to electric aviation or to aviation powered by renewable and sustainable fuels.

My counter-question to Oskar Svärd is: What is the government doing to accelerate the transition to sustainable aviation? Now, 1 billion is being spent on the aviation sector. One could have ensured that it contributed to accelerating the transition, but that was chosen not to be done.

If one now wants to reach the climate goals - which the government says in any case that it wants to, even though it actually does the opposite and increases emissions - why does one not invest in, for example, electric aviation or hydrogen aviation if one wants to support the aviation industry?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer!

When it comes to domestic travel by plane, aviation in Sweden accounts for approximately 1 percent of the emissions. When we talk about international travel by plane, they account for approximately 2-3 percent of the emissions.

The government is working hard and powerfully to transition aviation. That is why it has, in previous budgets for example, made a targeted investment in technology development and innovation to transition to electric aviation.

We also support the industry when it comes to transitioning to, for example, hydrogen and more renewable fuels. That work shall continue.

Mr. Speaker! The pandemic has affected the aviation industry broadly, in everything from the costs of security checks to reduced travel after the pandemic.

There is a broad dividing line between the Moderates and the Green Party. The Green Party seems to want to bring aviation down from the air at all costs.

Mr. Speaker! I want to see a functioning aviation, an aviation that adapts and an aviation that contributes to Sweden's growth and competitiveness.

My questions are: Why does the member's party not want to see aviation as an important mode of transport? Why does Miljöpartiet act in every way to put spokes in the wheels of the aviation industry by both voting no to the proposal and also by doubling the aviation tax? Why does Miljöpartiet increase the prices and make aviation a class issue?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We do that because we are keen to reduce carbon emissions and reach our climate goals. I have explained here several times that I really have nothing against aviation as a mode of transport.

What concerns me, Oskar Svärd, is the emissions of greenhouse gases. I hope that it also concerns the government. It does not seem so, because it is driving a policy that strongly increases emissions. No government has done that in 20 years. Now we stand in the middle of a climate crisis, and we have a government that strongly increases emissions. It is directly against what a large majority of the Swedish people want.

It will take time to transition aviation. I have expressed several times that I am positive towards a technological development where aviation can also become sustainable with electric flight, hydrogen flight, and so on. But it will take time to transition the aviation sector.

Therefore, the amount of flights matters for how much emissions we cause. Therefore, we have an ambition to, to the greatest extent possible, redirect those flights that one does not need to make to sustainable journeys.

Business aviation has decreased quite a bit during recent years. It is because people perhaps prefer to have a digital meeting instead of needing to fly.

I was raised in Skellefteå myself. I have many friends and acquaintances, perhaps within the business world, who need to get up at four or five in the morning and take the flight down to Stockholm for a lot of meetings. Then they come home late and miss dinner with the family.

For them, it is simply a great advantage to be able to have a digital meeting instead, and it is also an advantage for the climate.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to take the floor. But I was nevertheless somewhat surprised that, as you yourselves have also written in your motion, you do not stand behind the support for aviation of just over 1 billion that the government has proposed.

This was intended to compensate. The money that is missing is because we forced the airports to stay open so that people could receive care during the pandemic. It was nothing that the airports chose themselves. The government said: You need to stay open, because otherwise, Swedish healthcare will not function.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Green Party supported it, and we included a budget of 900 million to compensate the airports. Therefore, I am now a bit surprised. Why have you changed your mind? During the last parliamentary term, you supported that we should allocate 900 million to the airports to compensate for them staying open. What is it that has caused you to change your mind?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Helena Gellerman!

As I mentioned, quite a lot of support was given to aviation during the pandemic when we were in government. We were positive about it. There was a very broad consensus to compensate a long series of different industries that were hit hard by the pandemic.

Now we are in a situation where we see that ticket prices, for example in public transport, have skyrocketed. We have gigantic needs, not least within healthcare. We have huge challenges in getting the train to run on time.

As I said, I am not fundamentally opposed to providing support to the aviation industry. But I would rather see support that promotes a sustainable transition.

I am not saying that it is fundamentally completely wrong, absolutely not. What I am saying is that it is about priorities. That is what politics is about. One can choose to do many different things for 1 billion.

I am not saying that it is illogical or that there are no reasons. What I am saying is that one must always make a prioritization. Then we see that there are priorities that we consider significantly more urgent to address with 1 billion of the taxpayers' money.

We choose, above all, to spend money on what makes the sustainable cheaper, what supports a transition, or what supports families with children who today have a very hard time making ends meet and simply getting food on the table. It is, therefore, about priorities that need to be made.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that I did not receive an answer to the question. The State decides that the airports must be open during the pandemic so that severely ill people can be transported from around our country to various hospitals to receive care.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Green Party stood behind that if the state forces the airports to stay open, it was okay to compensate them with 900 million. But the Green Party does not stand behind that today.

I share the member's wish that aviation must also transition. All industries must transition. I believe that most parties in here support that. It is very positive that the EU is now setting common requirements for all of Europe.

On the other hand, it curbs the accumulated cost that comes from the state forcing the airports to keep the aviation transition open. It is one of the reasons why the government shall compensate the aviation industry, and for the fees that will be added to the passengers' ticket prices, with just over 1 billion.

That is why I am very surprised that you do not stand behind us in supporting the aviation industry with this billion so that they can have the muscles to be able to make their own transition and choose where they want to put the money to be able to transition. The EU is setting very tough requirements on the aviation industry moving forward.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Gellerman for the question, but I still do not quite understand the logic. I have explained that it is fundamentally about priorities. There were many industries that were hit hard by the pandemic and were not fully compensated, so it is not unique to aviation. As I just said: I am not saying that there are no arguments for it, but I am saying that we make other priorities.

I don't really understand the logic, Helena Gellerman. If one really wants to push for the aviation transition, one should still direct the state subsidies specifically to the aviation transition to ensure that is where the money actually goes. I'm not quite following the reasoning. Then put 1 billion towards supporting electric aviation, hydrogen aviation, or something else that actually contributes! There will be great challenges for the aviation industry given the requirements being set from the EU, and then it would not have been illogical with a subsidy from the state specifically for the aviation transition.

I do not follow the logic, but I mean that in the end it is still about priorities. It is not that there are no arguments for this, but there are also arguments for many other things. As I mentioned, I see that arguments for other sectors weigh heavier, such as making public transport cheaper and making the trains work, to mention some important examples within the transport area.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight's final debate concerns the government's new proposal which was presented on February 21 this year during a press conference and subsequently submitted to the Riksdag on April 11 as proposition 2023/24:116 Airport operators' costs for security checks.

In the referral, there is a follow-up motion from Miljöpartiet and a special statement from Vänsterpartiet. Miljöpartiet has chosen to participate in the debate, which we naturally welcome. But we actually know nothing about Vänsterpartiet's policy on aviation and air transport because they have been absent from both this debate and the debate on the aviation referral TU14 about two weeks ago.

In any case: We in the Sweden Democrats support the government's bill and move for the rejection of the Green Party's follow-up motion 2023/24:2890 and a reservation in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is an elongated country, and aviation is of great importance for the entire country. Air traffic meets both the transport needs of citizens and the business sector and is crucial for defense and preparedness, healthcare, and security. The security policy situation in the world, especially in Europe, as well as Sweden's entry into the defense alliance Nato, places high demands on the transport infrastructure in Sweden, where all types of traffic shall fulfill their place in the whole. From a preparedness perspective, aviation and its competitiveness are therefore very important for the entire society.

But aviation has unfortunately been deprioritized by politics for many years, despite its important role in the transport and preparedness system. The government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, has changed that. For the whole society to function, both goods and people must be able to be moved, and for that, a functioning transport system is needed. For us in Sverigedemokraterna, it is obvious that a functional, efficient, and sustainable transport system encompasses all modes of transport: road, rail, shipping, and aviation.

The aviation industry faces and is in the midst of several heavy challenges resulting from various factors. During 2022, the number of passengers at Swedish airports amounted to approximately 25 million. This meant an increase of a full 133 percent compared to 2021. Despite this, the aviation industry is still in a recovery phase from the corona pandemic. In 2019, the number of passengers amounted to almost 38 million.

Domestic aviation has continued to face great challenges in recovering and remains far below 2019 levels. Furthermore, the airlines BRA and SAS have been hit by enormous economic problems and have undergone reconstruction during the recent months. High fuel prices, inflation, low economic growth, the weakening of the krona against the euro and the dollar, as well as war and unrest in the rest of the world are other factors affecting aviation and airlines operating in Sweden, particularly regarding domestic travel.

Aviation's transition to environmentally friendly and fossil-free fuels creates additional economic and technical bottlenecks and challenges for the industry. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that aviation is needed and the industry is trying to transition with all possible tools and means. The economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic on aviation were extensive, and the deficits that arose during this period need to be recovered.

The pandemic led to a large deficit in the common fee equalization system, the so-called GAS, for security screening of passengers and their luggage. This system means that the costs for security screening at all Swedish security-approved airports are distributed per departing passenger, and the Transport Agency invoices the costs to the airlines based on the number of transported passengers.

The sharply reduced air traffic due to the pandemic led to sharply reduced revenues for the fee equalization system. The airports were, however, kept open for necessary societal preparedness, and since aviation security is globally regulated, the security measures could not be reduced to the same extent as travel. This resulted in a billion-kronor debt within the fee system, which at the end of 2023 amounted to 1,366 million kronor.

According to the Aviation Security Act, this deficit must be paid in, which can lead to additional costs for the airlines and the passengers. In a sensitive situation, this could mean a significant cost increase for the airlines and future passengers for a service they have not utilized.

The government's bill, which we are debating today, aims to meet this unique situation and strengthen aviation's competitiveness, which is crucial for an efficient transport system encompassing all modes of transport.

To implement this important initiative, an amendment to the Aviation Security Act is required, which is what the government's bill that we are debating today concerns, as well as the allocation of additional state funds to the Transport Agency, which has already been signaled by the government in the autumn budget for 2024. We in the Sverigedemokraterna consider this initiative to be both important and necessary and therefore stand behind the government's proposal in its entirety.

In conclusion, I would like to address the Miljöpartiet's follow-up motion and the Vänsterpartiet's special statement in this report.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet and Member Linus Lakso imply that the government's initiative would be a state subsidy to "cover the revenue gaps that have arisen." This is not correct. It is about a state system to pay for our aviation safety. The GAS fee goes entirely to Transportstyrelsen, which manages the fee equalization system. The airlines keep none of this fee, which means it is not a revenue in their income statement. It is also fundamentally wrong that future passengers should be burdened with state costs for an infrastructure they could not use during the pandemic.

Miljöpartiet completely fails to address the importance of aviation to society and the pandemic's far-reaching effects on the industry, and instead tries to pretend that the government's investment here would be some general aviation support.

It is important to note that it was the red-green government that governed Sweden until October 2022 that submitted the proposal that the state should cover the GAS deficit. The proposal was referred in April 2022, and none of the referral bodies were against the proposal. All government agencies were positive towards the proposal. Even the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency had "no comments on the memorandum". The legislative change was to enter into force on January 1, 2023, but was delayed after the change of government.

It is obvious that the Green Party is wrong in claiming that this is a contribution to aviation. The Andersson government submitted the proposal, and the Green Party was part of that government. To now claim that the circumstances are different is not credible.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet and Member Linda W Snecker write in their special statement that the government's proposal "does not either align with the principle that it is the polluter who should pay for their emissions."

I want to emphasize once again that it was the circumstances during the covid-19 pandemic that led to this billion-kronor deficit in the state GAS system. It is not compatible with the fee system's construction that future air travelers should pay for a security check they could not use. In Norway and other countries that let passengers pay for the security check, the corresponding fee was removed, but the red-green government did not want to do this despite the industry proposing this to avoid having to handle the deficit afterwards. Therefore, I see no connection between the government's initiative and the polluter pays principle.

It is irresponsible and unserious of Vänsterpartiet to not even want to take the debate on their own proposals and reasoning regarding aviation.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motion that has been submitted by Miljöpartiet.

After the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11, 2001, a regulatory framework was developed within the European Commission regarding enhanced security measures against criminal acts affecting aviation. The EU regulation contains provisions on how and to what extent passengers and baggage shall be security-checked before the flight. When it comes to the cost distribution and who shall bear the expenses, this is not regulated in the provisions, but it is up to each Member State to decide for itself how the cost distribution shall be.

In Sweden, the decision-makers at the time decided that a fee system, GAS, would be introduced. Today's system is based on the fact that those who travel also pay the airports' costs for the security checks through fees. The cost for all security-approved Swedish airports is accumulated and distributed per transported passenger.

Mr. Speaker! The pandemic affected society to a very great extent. I believe we all remember how, from one day to the next, we were forced to adjust our lives, both at work, within the family, and in our way of living in general. The reduced air traffic brought about by the pandemic also meant that revenues decreased in the fee system. Put clumsily, one could say that the aviation industry was given an impossible equation to solve when we told the industry "Keep flying" but told the passengers "Do not fly," this in order to reduce the spread of infection.

Mr. Speaker! I would, however, like to emphasize that aviation during the pandemic years was, and even now is, completely necessary from a societal preparedness perspective, in everything from the transport of medicines and vaccines to moving people who were in need of it.

Aviation security is regulated at a global level, and it also means that the security measures need to be maintained at a certain standard. The airports could therefore not reduce the security measures to the same extent as travel decreased. At the end of 2023, the deficit in the fee system amounted to 1,366 million.

Mr. Speaker! I am happy and proud that we have a government that sees aviation as an important mode of transport. When I visit airports around Sweden, such as the airport in Ängelholm last week, Skellefteå or Torsby, they all confirm the picture that aviation is needed for growth, our country's competitiveness and our ability to have a good readiness in the event of societal crises or, at most, war.

Now the government is putting forward a proposal for a temporary change in the fee system and is adding funds to the system in order to support the industry in that way. It is right and proper. With this decision, Mr. Speaker, and several other decisions that the government has made earlier, for example the proposal for halved aviation tax which is now out for consultation or the extended operating grant to airports all over Sweden, we now demonstrate in breadth that all modes of transport are important.

Mr. Speaker! There is a clear dividing line in Swedish politics' view on aviation, which today is confirmed here in the chamber by the fact that both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet will vote no to this proposal. The government, however, is moving from words to action - from the Socialdemokraternas and Miljöpartiets flight-shame policy to a policy that unites Sweden, where aviation transitions and where we no longer feel ashamed that aviation is good for all of Sweden to live and continue to develop.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the costs of security checks for airport operators.

Sweden is dependent on aviation to function. We and I have said it many times in this speaker's chair, but it bears repeating. All four transport modes - road, rail, aviation and shipping - need to function and function together so that Sweden and our companies can continue to maintain a high rate of innovation and to increase our competitiveness. Aviation must of course also transition, but the focus should be on aviation's emissions, not on the flight journey as such.

The transition costs large amounts, not least through the requirements from Fit for 55 and ReFuelEU Aviation. To manage it, we need an aviation industry that has a sound economy. But aviation was one of the industries hit hardest by the pandemic 2020-2022.

Mr. Speaker! After the terrorist attack in New York in 2001, the EU formulated requirements for expanded security controls and at the same time left it up to each member state to decide how they wanted to finance these. Some member states treated the cost as a state expenditure, but in 2004, Sweden chose in the Aviation Security Act that the airport operators' costs should be covered by a fee taken in a fee equalization system.

The common fee system for security screening of passengers and their luggage, called Gas, means that the costs for security checks at all Swedish security-approved airports are pooled and distributed among the departing passengers. The system functioned perfectly until the pandemic. Then the foundation for the system was pulled away as passengers stayed away and most planes remained on the ground. At the same time, the airports were forced to remain open for emergency flights and for the few planes that did still take off, not least to transport severely ill covid patients.

It required people to maintain the airports' functions, not least regarding the security checks. The costs were not at all in proportion to the revenues that the airports received from the fee system.

During the pandemic, the EU opened up so that the total costs could be spread out over a number of years after the pandemic. The current government has extended this time period. At the same time, the total deficit has continued to increase after the pandemic due to the slow recovery of the Swedish aviation market in comparison to the rest of Europe.

The burden from the fee system during the pandemic and thus the ability to ensure the aviation sector's function for Sweden and to bear the increased costs for the aviation sector's climate transition is why the government is now acting. The government is taking step by step to stabilize the aviation sector's economy after the tough years during the pandemic. We have increased the operating support to the non-state airports to 210 million and are reviewing the aviation tax. The government has made a decision on just over a billion to take care of the large lagging cost from the pandemic when the airports were forced to keep the security controls open.

It is important that future travelers should not have to pay for the security checks, which they actually did not utilize. A fee should apply to a service that one utilizes. No one utilized the security checks during the pandemic.

The proposal in this report, TU19 Airport operators' costs for security checks, is a prerequisite for a payment of the more than one billion that is in this year's budget to compensate the fee system for security checks. For a limited time, one year, the accumulated costs for security checks since the pandemic can be compensated in a way other than through a fee imposed on the passengers.

By the government recognizing aviation's important role for Sweden and having a great focus on aviation's climate transition, we hope to once again see a Swedish aviation industry that stands on firm ground and that contributes to the green transition of aviation, not only in Sweden but also globally. We are, in fact, far ahead. We are working with fossil-free fuels, we have the development of electric aviation and so on.

We must, however, not forget that this is not just about aviation and the aviation transition. It is also largely about how much aviation facilitates the competence needs of other industries, so that they too can manage their climate transition. If we look at the entire change occurring up in Norrland with fossil-free steel and with battery manufacturing, we see that they would not manage if aviation did not exist and could fly in the competence they need for their transition.

With these words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of the follow-up motion.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 June.)

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