Aviation issues

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today is finally the day to debate the report on civil aviation, that is to say, aviation. I want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

A large part of the report concerns that we shall continue with the Scandinavian aviation cooperation and that it shall constitute the basis for the joint work within the aviation area. I have chosen to divide my speech into three parts: the importance of aviation for Sweden, future travel, and what measures are needed here and now but also to meet the future.

Mr. Speaker! Between 2014 and 2022, aviation was deprioritized by the then Social Democratic government, not least when Miljöpartiet was part of the government base.

The creativity of the then red-green government when it came to finding proposals to undermine Swedish aviation was great. We all remember the discussions about Bromma, which was to be decommissioned at all costs, but where the Moderaterna, with the support of several other parties, put a stop to it.

In my opinion, a modern environmental party should celebrate the fact that one can make Bromma one of the world's first fossil-free hubs. Instead, the airports in Sweden are the collective symbol for the entire world's environmental and climate threats. It was wrong policy that was pursued for aviation, with bad side effects for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! A little over a week ago, the referral period for Peter Norman's airport investigation expired. The investigator's mandate included, among other things, to analyze and provide proposals on long-term directions regarding the state's responsibility for airports in Sweden, in order to ensure good accessibility for the business community, citizens, and socially important aviation.

At the same time as the consultation period expired, the aviation industry submitted an action plan where representatives from the industry highlighted important parts they want to contribute with, but also proposals that the politicians can adopt for stronger and better aviation in Sweden. I look forward to seeing the consultation responses that have been submitted regarding the airport investigation, but also the action plan that the industry has submitted. With great probability, both parts will be important in the future and may serve as the basis for upcoming policy in the aviation area.

Mr. Speaker! New winds are blowing. Sweden has a Moderate-led government with the Liberals and the Christian Democrats who, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, form a majority here in the Riksdag. This creates opportunities for aviation that we shall take advantage of. I am pleased that the preservation of Bromma is now included in the Tidö Agreement and that the transition of aviation is high on the agenda.

Aviation's importance for Sweden is great. We live in an elongated country with large sparsely populated areas where good and reliable flight accessibility is a prerequisite for growth and prosperity. For the tourism industry and for growth, and for Sweden to become more attractive when it comes to business establishments, a good aviation system is one of several important parts. It contributes to Sweden's competitiveness being strengthened and to companies daring to invest in the whole country, and it creates a cohesive Sweden.

It is also not possible to ignore the socially important function that aviation actually has. This applies to emergency airports, ambulance flights, firefighting flights, and transport during times of crisis and war. This must be protected, maintained, and developed.

Mr. Speaker! With a bourgeois government, we are now moving towards brighter times. Aviation is not an environmental villain threatening our climate for all time, but aviation is one of several important modes of transport that, like others, are reducing their emissions with a future and soon-to-be goal of fossil-free status.

According to the industry itself, electric aviation will operate commercial routes within just a few years, and hydrogen and a larger production of biofuels contribute to the transition. Here, research and development will mean a great deal. Our task will be to meet the development we now see with legislation in place and long-term rules of the game for aviation. Aviation is needed for all of Sweden to live.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that we are now moving from threats of shutdowns, flight shame, and the Green Party's ineffective symbolic politics to an aviation policy that supports aviation and where the state, the municipalities, and the industry work together for increased growth, the environment, preparedness, and jobs, for a safer, greener, and freer Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Oskar Svärd, for an interesting speech!

I note that Miljöpartiet is obviously the evil in Sweden when it comes to aviation.

It is interesting to hear that the government is engaged in breathing new life into aviation. What is problematic today is the government's aviation policy, and what is blowing is a lot of carbon dioxide. There is not much substance to what the member says in reality.

I specifically want to highlight what you say about Bromma Airport. The airport should be something that Miljöpartiet particularly highlights when talking about climate and environmental problems. Bromma Airport is an area intended for housing construction, and we have talked about that for many years. I know that Moderaterna have slightly different views on this, but Moderaterna know that Bromma Airport was retained for other purposes.

Still, the Tidö parties stand here and talk about Bromma as saved, as something one takes with them into the future and that will make the future bright for aviation. The only thing we know is that aviation at Bromma has been put on pause and will likely be phased out. 60 percent of aviation has disappeared. The investigator that MP Svärd speaks of, Peter Norman, says in his airport investigation submitted this spring that Bromma airport can be closed down. It is his firm opinion, but it is clearly readable between the lines that the government had said that he was not allowed to say this as a result of the investigation. But Bromma has no future and should be closed down now.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Helldén for thinking that I gave an interesting speech.

There are different political positions on the issue of Bromma. We say that Bromma should be preserved and developed, and we can see that Bromma can be a hub for electric aviation.

The member raises the issue of emissions. But I mentioned that in the case of emissions, a transition shall take place. It is the emissions that are to be combated - I share the member's view on that issue - not the travel itself.

Mr. Speaker! I stand by the fact that all four types of transport are extremely important for Sweden to hold together, for growth to be strengthened, and for us to build a stronger country.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The interesting thing is that when Peter Norman discusses the airport system, he talks about airports where there could be electric aviation, even though he cannot quite explain how they are to be developed with the speed he claims. It concerns Karlstad airport and Sundsvall-Timrå airport.

Peter Norman does not speak about Bromma Airport because he, as the investigator, is convinced that that airport was not needed. It only causes problems for Swedavia as a large loss-making operation. If one has read the investigation and, as we have done in the Committee on Transport, met the various actors, one knows that for the flights that were actually needed – for example, it is difficult to take the train to Kiruna – there must be a functioning airport system and flights.

But instead, Swedavia is being drained of money with an airport in central Stockholm that is absolutely not needed. It was needed to build housing, and the city owns the land. We should simply remove the existing traffic. It fits at Arlanda, and it has fit at Arlanda for a long time. Still, the Moderaterna say that it should be an electricity hub at Bromma. But the airport has done its job, and it only costs money.

Industry representatives who are to manufacture the electric planes – there are none yet – say that they will be in commercial traffic in 2027-2028. A steel skeleton is shown. These planes do not exist, and the industry says that electric aviation will not replace a single one of the lines that exist in Sweden today. Electric aviation is not the future. Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument for Bromma to remain and block the construction of housing for 100,000 Stockholmers.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite fascinating to hear the member speak about electric aviation not seeming to be on the way. When I meet industry representatives and those responsible at these airports, they speak precisely about the transition to electricity, to more biofuels, and to more hydrogen. Aviation is transitioning, and preparations are being made at the airports. I mentioned that Bromma could be such a hub.

I have full respect for the fact that we have different opinions on the issue linked to Bromma. The member is himself from the town, and I am from Örebro län - we may see Bromma in different ways.

I mentioned in my speech that the consultation period for Peter Norman's investigation expired just over a week ago. I do not intend to stand here today and discuss the proposals that form the basis of the investigation, but I look forward to reading the consultation responses that have been received from all over Sweden. Then we can together look at how we can develop aviation policy for the long term, where the transition is one of the prioritized areas.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Finally - the member began his speech. He then mentioned the action plan that the industry has submitted. We have both received it and think that there are many interesting proposals in it. The report we are dealing with today also concerns Scandinavian aviation policy, which is also a proposition, that is to say something that the government proposes.

Apart from this, it echoes a bit empty from the government representative. He says that it is an interesting action plan that has been developed, but I would like to know which concrete proposals are so interesting and that the member considers we need to introduce in the near future. We know that aviation must be part of the green transition, and the member also mentioned this in his exchange of remarks with the Green Party's Daniel Helldén.

The member also said that there is legislation in place. I become curious and wonder which legislation the member means is in place.

We know that the airlines during the covid pandemic had great difficulties linked to the increased costs that arose due to the traffic charges and so on. Does the member believe that the state should take a larger share of the charges when the aviation's self-financing of traffic charges is down due to government regulations? Otherwise, the industry will be hit enormously by charges because it has to bear such a large share of the costs due to government regulations.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

When it comes to the question of legislation, I did not say in my speech that legislation is in place. Legislation is indeed linked to the aviation sector, but I said that when development proceeds as fast as it de facto does, when a transition within aviation with electric flight is occurring in a few years, it is important that we in politics keep up and ensure that legislation is put in place to meet the development.

Mr. Speaker! The industry has submitted an action plan. There are two parts that I think are extra important. Among other things, it concerns the transition. The industry highlights what it wants to do for biofuels, hydrogen, and electric aviation. But the industry also says that we must ensure that there is an electricity supply and create conditions to scale up a domestic production of biofuels. It is a part of the action plan that I find interesting, and it is good and serious.

The second part concerns the supply of skills. In the dialogue I have had with the companies in the industry that have submitted this action plan, they raise the skills shortage as a problem – as with many other industries, it should be added.

We need to sit down and together develop a long-term solution to secure the expertise and transition aviation as quickly as possible.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the answers to my questions!

I would still like a further clarification, not least regarding what the member mentioned about scaling up the production of biofuels. In what way does the member believe the government can act to ensure that this happens? What incentives are we talking about? Is it legislation, is it support of some kind, or is it part of the climate initiative that the government intends to undertake to get an increased production of biofuels started?

The competence supply mentions the member as an important challenge. I believe we have all encountered that in different parts. But what are the proposals to meet it? The government has had almost a year, a parliamentary meeting at least, to come up with different proposals. And the competence supply issue is very acute and burning in many different ways. There, I would also like to hear the concrete proposals and not just that you must come up with them. What does the member have for proposals for this to be done?

In the consideration, we from the opposition parties have highlighted many concrete proposals and, not least, the importance of financing and providing support to regional airports. We also have the emergency airports. I tried to listen carefully, but I do not know if the member raised the specific emergency issue in the new situation we are in.

Which parts, more specifically, than competence supply and achieving fossil-free status, does the member link to the new security policy situation?

We need to safeguard and develop the different parts of the transport policy area. I am sincerely curious about how this can be done from the government's side.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

I said in my speech that it is not possible to ignore the socially important function that aviation is. There I mentioned the preparedness airports. I mentioned the ambulance flights and the fire-fighting flights, and I mentioned transports in times of crisis and war.

We need to have a policy and a long-term perspective in this work, because just as the member says, we find ourselves in a new security policy situation and in a new situation with extreme weather events, which cause forest fires and so on, and similar parts for which we need to have a high state of readiness.

When it comes to laws and guidelines in the future, Mr. Speaker, I received a question about what measures I want to see. What I can say here today is that it is always important to review the legislation that is in place to meet the upcoming need. It is always important to ensure that red tape and the regulatory burden for companies that are under development are reduced.

We have been in power for a relatively short time in relation to a parliamentary term and, above all, in relation to the two previous terms when the Social Democrats were in power. I believe one should have a bit more humility towards this task. If we are to have a long-term aviation policy and long-term rules of the game, we actually need a bit of time at the start to ensure that the right legislation and the right policy are put in place. But the members will see that in the near future.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Oskar Svärd, for the speech!

I requested the floor for two reasons, and I believe the member can guess what they are.

The first is that Oskar Svärd said that the Social Democratic governments have deprioritized aviation, which is not true. Under the Social Democratic governments, we developed an aviation strategy. We established the Arland Council. We commissioned an inquiry into biofuels. We allocated funds for regional airports. During the pandemic years that we have left behind, we pumped in nearly 16 billion kronor to support and help the airlines and our airports. I therefore wonder if Oskar Svärd still thinks that the Social Democrats have deprioritized aviation.

The second reason is Bromma Airport. I am a Stockholmer and have also been a municipal politician in the City of Stockholm. In Stockholm, we have over 600,000 people who are in the housing agency queue, who are in need of a home. And investigation after investigation, both from the state level and from the business sector and from Swedavia, which is responsible for the operation of Bromma Airport, establishes that Bromma Airport is no longer profitable.

Then I want to ask you, Oskar Svärd: How much more will the state need to subsidize Bromma Airport to keep it open? And what answer do you have for the people who are standing in the housing queue to get a home?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

When it comes to Bromma, I simply have too little knowledge to speak about Stockholm's housing policy and in which areas one can expand and not. But I can state that my personal opinion and the opinion of the government parties and our coalition party Sverigedemokraterna regarding Bromma airport is that it should be preserved, that it can be such an airport that becomes an electric hub, and that it is important for Sweden considering that it today transports people to and from Stockholm with the ease that Bromma provides.

The industry says the same. People talk about new air bridges when flying with electric aircraft, because one flies shorter distances. We will see completely new hubs in our elongated country.

The Speaker also points out that the Social Democrats did indeed introduce things linked to aviation. I would have been even more alarmed if you had not implemented anything. I know that you have done so within the aviation area, but I think that unfortunately it is not enough to meet what we see ahead of us now.

It is about, for example, the electrification of airports to meet the demand for electric aviation, which is here in a few years. There, the current government is taking decisive action to ensure that we get electricity on site, partly through more nuclear power plants and wind turbines, so that we can also transition aviation.

It is clear that you have done some things. I just do not think you have done enough.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Oskar Svärd!

I want to stay at Bromma Airport. As I mentioned in my previous post: The business community, Jacob Wallenberg, the state-owned company Swedavia which is responsible for the airports, and the state investigation on Bromma all draw the common conclusion that Bromma Airport is no longer profitable. In that case, it is irresponsible to waste the Swedish taxpayers' funds in this way.

It is also obvious that it is possible with a good margin to move the air traffic from Bromma Airport to Arlanda. If one looks at the figures from 2019, one sees that over 19 million passengers traveled from Arlanda. During the same period in 2022, the number of passengers was 13 million, so even if the 778,000 passengers who simultaneously traveled from Bromma were to travel from Arlanda, an additional more than 5 million passengers could travel through Arlanda. There is therefore capacity at Arlanda to take all of Bromma Airport.

New winds are blowing, says Oskar Svärd. Yes, I agree with that. You started by deprioritizing the main lines. You have also stopped the decommissioning of Bromma Airport.

I want to add that housing production in Stockholm is not just an issue for the people of Stockholm. It is actually also a national matter, because people come here from all corners of Sweden - from Norrland, from Dalarna. Housing is needed, and I think it is unfortunate that the Moderaterna have ideological blinkers in this issue.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually believe that the member has better contact with Jacob Wallenberg in this matter than the undersigned does.

I speak with people from the industry all over Sweden, and one sees that the airports are important. It may perhaps be important to have even more airports, or important to review where we have these purely strategically - not only from a preparedness point of view but also with consideration for the upcoming electric aviation, which flies shorter distances. In the long run, it could also be longer distances.

The member mentioned that we have deprioritized the main lines. I do not know if the member was referring to the fact that we do not want to see any high-speed trains. That is correct, and it is partly about maintenance and about having funding for the maintenance debt that the member's party and the previous government left behind.

We must create long-term funding for both roads, railways, and aviation as well as maritime traffic and maintain that which needs maintenance. This also applies to Arlanda and other airports. We need to ensure that they are robust and fully functional. That is how we get a Sweden that holds together. That is how we get a Sweden where the transition actually happens. That is how we build a policy where the transport sectors do not stand against each other.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is important that we debate aviation, not only in the Committee on Transport but also in the entire Riksdag, because it is clear that aviation is an important opportunity for a long country like Sweden to effectively transport, above all, people over the distances that exist.

There is much that is important in this. I think the Moderate member was so overarching in his description that I think it is difficult to think otherwise. It is good that we develop aviation. We need to safeguard, maintain and, as said, develop it. Therefore, it concerns me that the concrete parts are so few despite the fact that a proposition on Scandinavian aviation policy is actually treated in the committee report.

I would like to dwell on five different important parts of aviation, Mr. Speaker. This concerns, among other things, the regional airports and the possibility of keeping the whole of Sweden together. We have great distances, and the business community is extremely dependent on us having good opportunities to reach destinations both within Sweden and outside the country's borders. It is also important for the tourism industry that we want to see develop throughout the country.

Sometimes air travel is the best way to travel. Therefore, it is incredibly important to see the green transition that is now happening in several different ways and which needs to gain increased momentum. Even there, I am somewhat disappointed that there is no greater consensus in the government. There is no enthusiasm or drive for the fact that this is what needs to be developed so that one also comes up with the concrete proposals.

We know that the non-state airports are struggling with extremely difficult economic problems. In my exchange with the Moderate member, I raised the question of whether the state should not need to take a greater responsibility for the self-financing of the traffic fees - not least in times when it is authorities who say that one is not allowed to fly and one has to bear a very large part of those costs. I think it is a pity that the majority in the committee sticks to such overarching parts regarding aviation and actually does not go into the many times concrete and good proposals that the opposition parties come up with.

I would still like to say one more positive thing linked to the previous member. I, therefore, had the privilege of having an exchange of remarks, and I was pleased to hear that red tape was raised. When I entered the Riksdag during the time of the first alliance government 2006-2010, there was an enormous drive to reduce red tape, but I do not think that drive can be seen from the current government. I would very much like to see many more concrete proposals also in this area.

One of the reservations that Centerpartiet has in the report concerns precisely the financing of and support for the regional airports, and it is also that reservation I want to move for approval. We obviously stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval of only that one.

Another part that concerns me is that there is currently a lack of a plan in Sweden for what the minimum level of transport with different modes of transport should look like. It is well known that there needs to be some kind of action plan and some kind of vision from a government in order for it to be said that these important planning issues are being taken seriously. This creates uncertainty both for the general public and for the business community.

When we look at how during the corona pandemic one had to procure certain forms of transport quite ad hoc, we realize that there should have been a plan. Of course, the current government should not bear all the blame because it was another government that led Sweden then, but we really need to work out a common plan for this area.

Another part I would like to highlight in my speech is aviation's climate impact. Today we have the opportunity to use some of the green aviation fuel that exists; that can be done by the business sector or by us as individuals. But we need to do much more to address the emissions that aviation generates, and in that regard, it is important that the pace of transition is much higher.

I really hope that this is one of the parts that the sitting government will bring up in connection with the airport investigation that Peter Norman conducted. It is about the biofuels commission - and not just about appointing a commission, but about coming up with concrete proposals on how quickly we can increase biofuel production in Sweden so that we can address this. We also need to make efforts for electric aviation.

I want to conclude my speech by highlighting a part that one could say partly concerns bureaucratic red tape, Mr. Speaker, or at least rules that need to be changed. It concerns obstacle lighting at wind turbines.

It concerns me that the Transport Agency rejects proposals regarding the use of other technologies that do not create the light interference that arises in connection with the wind turbines. From the Defense Forces' side, they do not trust this technology, and therefore the Transport Agency gives a rejection. It is clear that we need to resolve that type of issue so that we facilitate all the parts concerning aviation - and also other things that are in the air. We are to debate a drone strategy in the next matter, so parts may return then.

I therefore move for approval of the Center Party's reservation 2.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on aviation issues. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

Aviation is important - yes, a fundamental prerequisite - for the whole of Sweden to function. That the whole of Sweden should have good opportunities to grow, live, and develop is a priority for the new government, and to achieve this, large investments in the transport infrastructure are needed. It is both about managing what we have already built and about investing in both maintenance and new infrastructure where it is needed. An export-dependent country like Sweden needs a robust infrastructure and functioning transport; it is a prerequisite for our economy and competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! We need all four modes of transport: road, rail, air, and shipping. They should not be pitted against each other. On the contrary, they complement each other.

In Sweden with long distances, aviation has played an important role historically, and without doubt, aviation will have an even more important role in the future with the exciting development that is taking place.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is one of the countries in the world that is best suited for an early introduction of electric aviation. Through new technology, availability in our country can increase. Electric aviation enables, among other things, the establishment of new point-to-point flight routes in Sweden between smaller and regional airports around the country, but also for new routes outside our country, not least to Finland and Norway. This, my friends, is truly exciting.

A lot is happening in this area right now. The Swedish aviation industry is working to be fossil-free by 2030 and is working intensively to electrify aviation. There is therefore no reason to feel flight shame when the Swedish aviation industry will transition and become fossil-free, but on the contrary, flight shame is replaced with flight joy.

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that we have a government that has put its foot down regarding Bromma Airport. It is part of the agreement in the Tidö Agreement. Bromma Airport will be able to function as a hub for future electric aviation. Aviation is far ahead in the transition work. The airlines are already talking about the opportunities that open up for Bromma Airport with electric aviation. Thanks to electric aviation having a lower noise level and needing shorter runways than traditional aviation, it opens up entirely new conditions to build housing near Bromma Airport while simultaneously securing the opportunity that a city-proximate airport provides.

Mr. Speaker! Society-critical aviation for, among other things, healthcare, emergency services, fire aviation, coast guard aviation and other actors within crisis preparedness and total defense fulfills a very important function. Also, the current security policy situation in Sweden's immediate vicinity underlines how pressing this is.

It has been a tough time during and after the pandemic. At the same time, the pandemic has shown how important it is to have access to fast, society-critical transport.

Aviation is also important for an export-dependent country like Sweden, and it makes it possible for people in different parts of the country to visit family, relatives and friends who may live in another part of the country.

Aviation has served Sweden well, and aviation will also play a very important role in Sweden in the future.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Oscarsson for an inspiring speech. One can almost not help but be uplifted by the word "flying joy" and the positive attitude that the Christian Democrats and Magnus Oscarsson have towards this industry. It is very important for Sweden's sake. But it is not enough with happy shouts from the government parties' side, it is also about in what way one will facilitate the development that the member speaks so warmly for.

What are the concrete political proposals to achieve fossil-free status? The Member of Parliament seemed mostly happy that a lot is happening. But not least, red tape is something that we would need to address for the developments to occur in earnest.

I would very much like to hear what the content of a policy is that aims to accelerate the green transition and achieve fossil-free status. In what way does one want to tackle that challenge?

I would also like to ask in what way it is intended to be facilitated. Just as the Moderate member mentioned earlier, the bureaucratic red tape is an important part to address. In our exchange of remarks, I am curious to hear from Magnus Oscarsson, who belongs to the same party as the responsible minister, in what way he believes the bureaucratic red tape can be addressed.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Heie for the questions.

These are incredibly important issues, which I also highlighted in my speech. Member Heie raises the issue of regulatory complexity. It is something that I know the government is reviewing. I also know that our minister is having discussions on how to do what the member is touching upon, in order to reduce and perhaps also remove some rules that are perceived as complicated and troublesome and which have been so for a very long time. This is something that is being reviewed right now at the Government Offices.

We have had a situation in our country with an enormous amount of red tape, not only in this industry, which we experience as hindering development. I know, as I said, that this is something that is being worked on.

How are we then going to get more fossil-free? One thing is naturally that more electricity is produced in the country. Here, the government has really taken to heart getting electricity production moving. We need, for example, more nuclear power. It is very important that we get this released, so that we get more electricity production in the country. It is also very important that we produce biofuels in a good way in our country. These are things where there might not be full speed right now. But here it is very important that we act, and I know that the government is doing that.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the answers.

The member and I have debated the regulatory complications previously in various contexts, also in other committees, not least the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. Now the member says it is being reviewed right now and that he knows that work is being done on the issue. When will you present which parts you have addressed that the member knows are being worked on? What types of rule changes do you intend to return with to the Riksdag or to the industries?

The Speaker also says that biofuels are very important. If it is very important, I think it is certainly something that both the Minister and the entire government are working on. What are then the concrete political proposals to increase biofuels in Sweden? What is it that the government intends to come back with?

The Member of Parliament belongs to the Christian Democrats, and I believe that both the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure have a great commitment to these issues. It is therefore important for all of us to know when this will be put in place. The Member of Parliament himself seems to have a very long time perspective, as he highlights nuclear power, which we know will take a very long time to establish. In that case, I think that biofuels could be a significantly faster process.

What does the concrete policy look like to increase biofuel production here in Sweden?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Heie again for her questions.

Just as I touched upon in the previous turn, we have biofuels, which are a great opportunity and very important for our country. Unfortunately, we see that there have been difficulties. For example, biogas has had many problems, which has made it tough for many actors. I know that it is something that this government is really tackling to get out of this and make fossil-free fuel become an important part in Sweden. We have, for example, hydrogen, which is also exciting, and electricity production. Admittedly, it might just take some time right now to produce more nuclear power. But the important thing is that we start somewhere. We still know that nuclear power is something that works over time. Even when there is no wind, nuclear power works.

Actors want long-term perspective, because if they are to invest, they want to know what applies moving forward. Therefore, I believe it is important that our government has stood its ground. We believe in the future for Swedish aviation. We also know that it is important that long-term perspective prevails. The signals from this government are that aviation is not just a part that one wants to remove, but that aviation is here to stay.

Instead of flight shame, we say flight joy. That is what we want to work with from this government's side.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Oscarsson spoke about many things, and I thought specifically of one thing, namely the question of pitting modes of transport against each other. It sounds like one pits, for example, buses and airplanes against each other, but what we are pitting against each other are the different modes of transport's effects on climate and environment. We know that, for example, trains, which the government chooses not to invest in and stops the expansion of, have a much better track record when it comes to climate and environment than the aviation that Member Oscarsson stands and defends. We all know that we will need aviation and that aviation will not disappear, but we must still realize that aviation is deeply problematic, not least in these times when we have a climate crisis that is accelerating.

The Speaker is talking about the joy of flying. I can imagine that those who throw themselves out with a hang glider can feel the joy of flying when the wind rustles and they fly away - absolutely! Flight shame is a concept that I think one should not use, but on the other hand, flight responsibility could be a concept to keep in mind. It is about the fact that there are occasions where people need to fly, but that one should take responsibility and refrain from all flying that is not needed. Then one can feel the joy of flying when one throws oneself out with the hang glider.

I conclude with Bromma Airport: Can Member Oscarsson not admit that Bromma Airport was not needed?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Daniel Helldén, for the questions you are asking! I shall try to answer them.

Firstly, we are not saying no to all trains. I just want to bring it up once and for all. We are not saying that trains are something terribly unpleasant, rather we think that trains are fantastic! But the previous government basically put all their eggs in one basket. As a farm boy, I have learned that one should not do that, but instead should try to spread them out, because it can cause problems otherwise. And that was exactly what we discovered, and for eight years now we have tried to talk about that one cannot just say that if we do it, everything will be fine. We see that the maintenance debt in our country is enormous. We are talking about incredible sums. Then it is not possible to say that everything will be solved just because we invest in the high-speed railway. It doesn't hold up. We do not believe in that, on the contrary.

We must ensure that we have a robust railway, but also robust and good roads. I mean that we should not tear each other apart. We have these different types of transport in our country, and it is important to see that they complement each other. We should not set them against each other. I really mean that, because I truly believe in this regarding Bromma. With the large-scale electrification that we are talking about, it will become a completely new future for Bromma. Then one can perhaps also build more housing around. That is the idea.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would say that there is a big difference between the transport laws for aviation and trains. We need the investments in the trains. We do not need large investments in aviation, as this government wants to do. Furthermore, the government wants to maintain airports that finished their purpose a long time ago and that could be used in a much better way. Bromma Airport is a site for housing. There is nothing else to have there.

Air and rail are two modes of transport that should not be pitted against each other, but one can observe that they have completely different climate effects.

When it comes to the train, it is about building main lines. But we know that we are now going to maintain them; we are going to replace overhead lines, and we will need to replace everything over the next 20-30 years. What happens is that the trains will not get through. Now, single-track operation will be used for many years on the Western Main Line so that repairs can be made. And that must be done because we do not have any redundant system. This will cause people to fly instead, and it is incredibly unfortunate.

There are electric aircraft today – there is a tour ongoing where a two-passenger plane is flown with electricity at regional airports. There are drones and all sorts of things; actually, electric aviation and drones are pretty much the same thing. But for the vast majority of the aviation we have today, there is no replacement in the foreseeable future. The government must realize this. You cannot just talk about something that does not exist and see it as a replacement for that which is causing problems today.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Daniel Helldén again for further questions.

As said, we cannot take the train across our entire country. It is impossible. Therefore, aviation is an incredibly good complement. That is what regional airports want to showcase. I know that the minister is out in different parts of the country and is speaking with the regional airports to get a handle on the situation. It is, as said, a complement that is immensely important. It is even life-saving for many municipalities that there is an airport, and there is no train there. Just as the member is inside, this is currently being resolved.

Now the member cannot answer me, but what responsibility does the previous government have? When we sat in the committee yesterday and heard that some parts that are to be redone now on the railway are 70-year-old things – 70 years! The previous government did not sit for 70 years, of course, but this is a huge responsibility that I believe the previous government did not take. Now we have to take it over. It is not the case that this government came to a set table, on the contrary. One came to a table full of dishes that one had to start by clearing off oneself. That is exactly what we have to do here now.

That is why it is incredibly important that we now have a government that stands its ground in various issues. We will also ensure that we achieve long-term perspective in this.

In conclusion, I also want to say that people on Gotland are now very grateful that we have said yes to keeping the airport in Bromma. For them, this is very important. It is a lifeline between Gotland and the mainland that we have today in Bromma.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report on aviation. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 3 regarding emergency airports and reservation 6 regarding Bromma airport.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long history of civil aviation, stretching back to the 1920s. During this time, the aircraft were small and were primarily used to transport mail and passengers within the country. Over time, the technology developed, and the aircraft became larger and more advanced. Today, Sweden is one of the leading nations within the aviation industry.

Sweden is a large country in terms of surface area, which also lies on the outskirts of northern Europe. This means that aviation is important both within Sweden and for international travel.

Even with a significantly improved railway, aviation will be needed for domestic transport. On some routes, the train can replace the plane, but especially for northern Sweden, aviation will be very significant even in the future.

Sweden is an export-dependent industrial country. Aviation is needed, but aviation also needs to transition. For us Social Democrats, a well-functioning aviation infrastructure is an important part of holding the whole country together.

It is important that the state increases its responsibility for the preparedness airports and secures the conditions for socially important aviation. We also think it is important that the capacity at Arlanda airport is secured and that Bromma airport should be closed. Measures are also needed for well-functioning public transport to and from Arlanda.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about aviation, we also need to relate it to its impact on the climate. To reduce aviation's climate impact, progressively stricter rules were needed through both the EU and ICAO. We Social Democrats have not hesitated to take the lead and go to the forefront internationally when it comes to aviation's climate transition, for example by demanding taxation of fossil aviation fuel. Therefore, we also welcome the Fit for 55 package, which means that the use of sustainable fuels shall increase within the aviation sector.

We also think that Sweden should investigate the possibility of requiring that procured air traffic be conducted fossil-free, for example with the help of sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen flight or electric flight. Sweden should be leading in getting the EU on board to open up for climate-related requirements in procurements concerning air traffic.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to maintain high ambitions for Sweden's aviation industry, especially after the pandemic that hit the industry hard. We shall be at the forefront when it comes to becoming the world's first fossil-free welfare state. This requires continued research in the field, support, and good cooperation within the industry.

The work to make aviation sustainable should be encouraged and continued through the development of both electric aircraft and biofuels and through sharpened steering instruments.

Mr. Speaker! In January 2020, Trafikanalys was commissioned by the then Social Democratic government to analyze suitable measures to promote the development of electric aviation. In that report, it was stated that aviation is needed but that it must transition. Therefore, investments in biofuels and electric aviation are absolutely necessary and an important part of the transition of the transport system. Now, it is a matter of increasing the pace of the transition and adapting the infrastructure for new technology and not sitting passively in the stands.

Mr. Speaker! The right-conservative government has started off in the wrong direction on the infrastructure area by first stopping the investments in new main lines for trains and then stopping the decommissioning of Bromma Airport – two strategically important future initiatives that would generate several thousand jobs, housing, and climate-smart transport opportunities.

For the entire Swedish business community's development power, we need to focus on Arlanda's development. More and more people now realize that the future of aviation is not facilitated by operating two airports in Stockholm which partly run the risk of incurring losses and partly split up necessary investments. Closing Bromma Airport and moving the aviation to Arlanda would also enable an addition of 30,000 homes on the old airport land.

Mr. Speaker! The right-conservative government clearly prioritizes inner-city flights for a few comfortable high-flyers over climate transition, housing construction, and strengthening Arlanda Airport as Stockholm's and Sweden's window to the world. Why else does the right-conservative government insist on continuing an unprofitable operation when there is an opportunity to build an entirely new district with up to 30,000 homes, preschools, schools, and workplaces in our country's capital, something that is to the benefit of the entire country's economy and development power?

It is a question that the representatives from the government parties should reflect on and strive to answer. Why should the taxpayers bear the cost of an airport that is no longer profitable and is used by few people?

(Applause)

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kadir Kasirga, for the speech!

I intended to dwell a little bit on Bromma Airport, which Kadir Kasirga also took up in the exchange with Oskar Svärd earlier. There is a lot of talk that Bromma Airport is financially unprofitable. In that case, I would like to ask why Swedavia does not choose to sell Bromma Airport to Bromma Airport Group, a private company that has been interested in buying Bromma Airport. They really wanted to buy, but no, they were not allowed to. Swedavia instead retains an unprofitable airport.

I would like to know if Kadir Kasirga knows why. It is never good to maintain losing deals.

Bromma is, just as Member Magnus Oscarsson said earlier, a lifeline between Gotland and the mainland. As was said: We need all forms of infrastructure. One should also know that investments have been made regarding infrastructure to and from Bromma airport, and enormous amounts of money have also been invested in Bromma airport. But this does not seem to affect the Social Democrats. It is better to shut it down.

Infrastructure is important. We shall build infrastructure, not dismantle it. The government has also, which is positive, said that one could build much closer to the airport if we use this airport for electric aviation, as it then will not be disturbing for the surroundings. The environmental effects are also much smaller, and the emissions disappear more or less completely.

I therefore see an enormous future for Bromma as a hub for the aviation of the future.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jimmy Ståhl, for the questions!

Why does Swedavia not sell the operations at Bromma Airport to a private actor? I do not believe in the private solution, and I wonder: Why should a private actor buy an unprofitable operation?

We also have municipal self-government. It is the City of Stockholm that owns the land. Does Jimmy Ståhl really mean that the state should override the City of Stockholm, which owns the land and which also has a duty and obligation to build housing for current and new Stockholmers?

Firstly, this is land that is not located on the outskirts of Stockholm. It is almost in the middle of Stockholm, in the middle of the residential area. I therefore think that Bromma Airport's location is also a dangerous location from a security perspective. That should be taken into account.

Secondly, so many investigations - government inquiries, from the business sector and from the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce - have time and again come to the conclusion that Bromma Airport is not profitable.

At Bromma Airport, housing is to be built for Stockholmers - new homes, new preschools, many thousands of jobs. Bromma shall not remain as an airport for only a few people who use it.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are showing their true face: One must not privatize.

But I can inform Kadir Kasirga that a private contractor is not interested in buying if it means a loss-making deal. Naturally, there is a profitability.

Then I also understand Kadir Kasirgas thoughts about building 30,000 new homes. It sounds absolutely fantastic. The problem today is that no homes are being built at all. It is far too expensive. We will probably have to wait and see about the dream of these 30,000 homes.

On the other hand, today's government opens up the possibility of building housing near the airport. And the more people who live there, the greater the desire to travel. In that case, it is perfect to have the airport there.

This is a debate about aviation. But Kadir Kasirga mentioned the high-speed railways. We Sweden Democrats are very pleased that the plans for these high-speed railways have been scrapped. But judge my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when we wondered what we would do with all this money. We opened the tax chest and looked. There was no money there. There wasn't even a penny in the tax chest.

Can Kadir Kasirga explain to me where the money is that was to be used for the high-speed railway? Where are all those funds that we expected to use to complete the Ostkustbanan and Botniabanan and for maintenance? There is no money.

The Social Democrats have built castle in the air after castle in the air. And when you peer into it, there is nothing. It is empty. I was almost afraid when I shouted down into the tax chest and it just echoed. So I wondered if anyone was lying there. But it was only myself that was heard. It was so empty. Where is the money, Kadir Kasirga?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! No housing is being built these days in Sweden. And the Sweden Democrats do not make things easier by, for example, stopping the investment support for the construction of new housing.

Housing construction is a municipal responsibility. Those who build the most across Sweden are the social democratically led municipalities. Furthermore, they build rental apartments.

There is talk about the maintenance debt for railway maintenance and other things. Yes, there is a maintenance debt. I agree with that. But neither the Sweden Democrats nor the bourgeois parties have ever reflected on what this might be due to, other than that the politics has not budgeted for it. People do not talk about the privatizations that occurred in the 90s and how fragmented the railway maintenance is. And here stands the Sweden Democrats' Jimmy Ståhl, raving about privatization and for selling even Bromma Airport to a private actor.

I believe that our strategic infrastructure should be under the control of the state and society, not under the control of private actors.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for his speech. The member spoke a good deal about Bromma Airport. I therefore want to stay there a little bit. I spoke with the member in the previous exchange of remarks about precisely the lifeline between the mainland and Gotland. We know that Bromma Airport is incredibly important for the people of Gotland.

After having read up on this and having an entire delegation from Gotland in our committee, we know that the people of Gotland consider that no airport on the mainland is as important for Gotland as Bromma Airport.

Therefore, it is interesting to listen to the member when he actually rejects the government saying, with the Tidö Agreement behind it, that Bromma Airport shall remain. In my speech, I took up the development of electricity in the future. It is not any fantasies when we talk about hubs with electricity. It is something that can become reality, and we believe strongly in this.

My question to the member is: What do the member and the Social Democrats say to all the residents of Gotland who say that they are happy today that this government has put its foot down and said that Bromma Airport shall remain?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that we Social Democrats are progress optimists. We believe in the future. We also believe in future electric aviation. It may take a little longer. But man is persistent. At some point in the future, it will be possible to fly electric aircraft.

When it comes to Bromma airport, it is my firm opinion that new homes shall be built on this land for Stockholmers, for the new Swedes moving to Stockholm, for people from Gotland, for people from Norrland, for people from Dalarna, and for people from Dalarna. Housing is needed at Bromma airport.

There is plenty of capacity at Arlanda Airport. We only need to invest in the public transport solutions to make Arlanda Airport much more accessible and ensure that one can get to and from Arlanda Airport in a more efficient way. Then we have also solved the problem of getting to Stockholm.

Bromma Airport is located almost in the middle of Stockholm city. It is not that far. But there is also a traffic problem there. During rush hour, it can sometimes take 40 minutes to get to Stockholm city.

But if we invest in functioning public transport - railway and commuter trains - to and from Arlanda Airport, it will go much faster.

My firm opinion is therefore that Bromma Airport should be leveled and that a new district should be built there.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It was naturally expected that the member wants to level Bromma Airport with the ground. But we do not want to do that, instead we want the airport to remain and develop the area around the airport. We do not want to level the airport with the ground but actually see if we can build housing around the airport.

The committee members were in on that Gotlanders should be able to live in Bromma. But we hope that the Gotlanders will want to stay on the island and not need to move to Bromma, but actually be able to fly to Bromma and back. It is a very big difference. We believe, in fact, that the whole country needs to live and operate and that there is a belief in the future. That is what we are trying to advance.

When the Tidö parties have now said that we are to keep the airport in Bromma, it is a very important signal to all Gotlanders who have said that Bromma airport is the absolutely most important airport in the country, except for the one on Gotland.

I am naturally happy, as I have said, that Bromma airport has a future. And with the electrification that is underway, we believe that this will be very positive for Bromma, for Gotland, and actually for all of Sweden.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! To say that Bromma Airport shall be a hub for electric aviation, I think is a very strained move from the government's side and that one wants to preserve an airport that is no longer profitable at any cost. I do not understand how one can play with the taxpayers' funds in this way.

People fly to Stockholm, not to Bromma. It is not Bromma airport that is the window to the whole country and to the whole world. It should be Arlanda airport. There is overcapacity there. There are also investigations from the state level and from the business sector that have concluded that it is no longer profitable to keep Bromma airport.

Despite this, the bourgeois parties, and particularly the right-conservative government, insist and fight to maintain an unprofitable operation. It is completely incomprehensible to me that one cannot see further and instead invest in making Arlanda a hub and a window for Sweden's aviation.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are going to debate aviation issues. I say "finally", just as my colleague did earlier - finally it is beginning to become clear to more and more people that aviation has the ability to transition.

Many are like me, concerned about the climate impact from today's aviation. But it is not at all at the same high level as that from our road transport, which accounts for 95 percent of our domestic emissions from transport. All modes of transport must, however, transition. And now we see that electric aviation, biofuels, e-fuels, aircraft running on hydrogen, and reduced high-altitude effects are approaching in rapid strides. Finally, aviation gets air under its wings after having been deprioritized by the old government for eight years.

Sweden is dependent on our four modes of transport – vehicles, trains, aviation and shipping – being able to function together. They should not be pitted against each other because they complement each other. Each one is important and contributes to Sweden being able to function, that companies get access to competence and can transport their products, and that people in Sweden can meet relatives and friends and discover new places.

Aviation has had some tough years during the pandemic and is still not completely back to 2019 levels. International travel is increasing faster than domestic travel. Sweden lags slightly behind the rest of Europe regarding aviation's recovery after the pandemic.

By recognizing aviation's important role for Sweden, through cooperation and with a great focus on aviation's climate transition, we can soon see that the Swedish aviation industry is back on firm ground and can contribute to the green transition of aviation globally.

One such area is electric aviation. Sweden is, together with Norway and the rest of the Nordic countries, one of the countries in the world best suited for an early introduction of electric aviation. Electric aviation began to be discussed in 2018, and the thoughts were focused on how cheap, fossil-free electric aviation can affect the living conditions for people and companies in rural areas and what needs electric aviation has for new airports.

Now, a Swedish electric aircraft for 30 people and 400 kilometers is being developed by Heart Aerospace outside Gothenburg. Electric aviation has the potential to connect regional smaller airports around the country and also within the Nordic region. The Liberals therefore want to see a developed cooperation in the Nordic region to create a Nordic aviation market for electric aircraft, where the regulations are coordinated. Airlines in the USA also see potential to re-establish a regional flight network, something that has disappeared because current aircraft place other requirements to provide economics for the industry – they therefore discontinued the regional flight network.

The government has increased the appropriations for research and innovation in the field of electric aviation. Efforts are being made to increase cooperation within the area and the possibilities for procurement of electric aviation for routes with a public service obligation are being investigated.

Bromma Airport shall be preserved; this is an important transport-related part of the Tidö Agreement. It is pleasing that there is now talk of Bromma as a hub for electric aviation in Sweden, a development that the Liberals have pushed for since the last parliamentary term. Electric aviation's lower noise levels and its need for shorter runways mean that land areas around airports can be released for housing, while urban airports are made possible. It is therefore important that housing is not pitted against airports. With electric aviation, one can get greater opportunities and larger land areas to build housing on. Let us take advantage of that opportunity!

Swedavia, with its ten larger airports and the regional airports, will soon be climate neutral. Investigations are now being conducted on how charging infrastructure and alternative fuels can be provided at the airports.

At the EU level, decisions have been made during the spring regarding aviation's part of Fit for 55, where ReFuelEU Aviation sets requirements on precisely charging infrastructure and alternative fuels. We best handle aviation's emissions at an international level to achieve effect, and here we must use the EU to achieve global impact on aviation.

The transition of aviation is necessary but requires large investments from the aviation industry. In light of this, we need to review the aviation tax. It was introduced and became strongly criticized because it did not focus on aviation's emissions but was intended to dampen people's desire to travel, have new experiences, and meet relatives and friends, as the tax was paid per airplane seat and not related to the emissions. This tax should be phased out in tandem with the aviation industry's costs for the climate transition increasing. For the Liberals, it is the emissions that are the problem, not the flight itself.

It is important that we spread knowledge about the state of development throughout Europe and globally. At a meeting between the European Parliament and the national parliaments last week, I, together with two colleagues, raised the positive developments in Sweden regarding aviation. I personally raised that an electric aircraft is now being developed in Sweden for 2028, with a capacity for 30 people and a range of 400 kilometers. Many eyebrows were raised, and people were pleasantly surprised. It is important that we within the EU spread information about the actual progress that is occurring regarding the aviation sector's green transition, so that the right expectations can drive the plans within aviation at both the national level and the EU level.

In February, the most extensive airport investigation conducted in Sweden in 16 years was completed, and the referral responses have just been submitted. It will be interesting to review them and take a holistic approach to the country's airports and the financing models, so that aviation is secured for the future. Here, electric aviation, preparedness, firefighting aviation, and ambulance aviation are important parameters. The strategic importance of the national and regional airports for connecting the entire country, for future electric aviation, and for the country's preparedness, not least now in the shadow of the war in Ukraine, is very great.

The Liberals also want regions and municipalities to be allowed to procure and finance air traffic, as in the rest of the EU. We consider it market-restricting that this possibility is lacking in Sweden, and we believe that some problems in rural areas can be solved by opening up this possibility.

Mr. Speaker! It is not through surcharges that we achieve fossil-free aviation, but through technological development and innovations. That is why I and the Liberals, as technology optimists, believe in aviation and believe that we can address aviation's climate impact, in Sweden and globally, through electric aviation, biofuels, hydrogen, and further optimization of aircraft construction to streamline transport and reduce high-altitude effects. Ultimately, perhaps even because of the high-altitude effects, some compensation through carbon capture is required to reach net zero. We are open to this. We want to support research in all these areas to secure aviation in a fossil-free future.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker - after eight years in which the government has opposed and dismantled the aviation sector, Sweden has now finally received a new liberal, conservative government, for which aviation has a positive future in Sweden.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member Gellerman is very positive towards aviation and believes in electric flight. At the same time, it sounds as if our existing aviation is not that dangerous and does not emit so much. But the emissions from the total Swedish aviation, both national and international, correspond to the emissions from all Swedish car traffic. These are enormous emissions, which we must address, in an activity that many times can be replaced with something else. It is not always so, and when it cannot be, we shall use aviation. I think, however, that in these times, it is serious to make it sound as if aviation is not a problem.

There is a lot of talk about electric aviation. Swedish electric aviation is coming, it is said. We will soon have electric aircraft that can fly long distances and take over flight routes. We know at the same time that the company that is being talked about at best might have some kind of hybrid plane that can fly around and emit carbon dioxide when the planes need to produce electricity, because the electricity in the batteries runs out. At the same time, the planes are supposed to carry around four tons of batteries. These are not electric aircraft we are talking about. It is an idea and a wish that aviation should become fossil-free within a short time, but even the industry says that they are not there. They will not be able to replace their flight routes with these aircraft within the foreseeable future.

Still, it is this that the government builds its entire enthusiasm for aviation on. They also want to heavily subsidize aviation, when we know that what we need to do is to reduce flying.

I know that the Liberals have long been strongly positive towards aviation, and I find that regrettable. We must, after all, handle the climate issue.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Helldén for the question.

I first wanted to address the point that I am not problematizing and that I am giving a beautified picture of aviation. The first thing I took up in my speech was that it is extremely important that aviation transitions. All types of transport must transition. What I did was to put this in relation to road transport in Sweden. There we have much greater potential to transition quickly.

One must start with technological development so that aviation can also transition, both when it comes to electric flight for shorter distances and for producing biofuel in larger quantities, so that we can replace the fossil fuel.

We also take a positive stance on all the development that is occurring regarding hydrogen and the use of hydrogen for the longer flights. There is GKN in Trollhättan, which has long experience with hydrogen as they have been part of space transport and have great knowledge.

We have a great deal of this competence in Sweden. That is why the Liberals really want to invest a lot of research funding so that we can move forward. Electric aviation is being developed. They may, to some extent, have passed the research stage - here, they are trying to solve pure development problems in order to have a certified aircraft by 2028.

There are also other parts, for example how we are to manage - or minimize - the high-altitude effects. What can we do there?

We need much more research regarding aviation to manage the transition.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The member says that electric aviation has left the research stage. Electric aviation has existed for a long time in various forms. We will later have a short discussion about drones, and much of electric aviation is well a kind of drone in that it is electric propellers that propel the planes. We know that there are small airplanes; it is when one is to scale it up that the really big problems arise.

I also believe that hydrogen can be a development. I have met people from the facilities in Trollhättan - there is something there, but it is far in the future. The problem is that it is now we must eliminate the emissions. We know that we cannot push in that much biofuel in aviation during this time, so we must reduce flying and ensure that the flight routes that are actually needed become somewhat fossil-free.

But instead, this government is about to increase aviation. People are to fly more. People are to have more airports. People are to subsidize aviation. They are happy to set the train aside so that people fly. I find that deeply worrying.

In this discussion, it is said by the member that just Sweden would be well suited for electric aviation. I do not understand that. The whole world should, in that case, be suited for electric aviation. What is it that is happening in Sweden and Norway that makes just these countries suited for electric aviation? I do not understand that. Possibly the answer will be that there are some who are tinkering with such aircraft, but I expect it is something else that makes it especially good here – I do not know if it is the cold in relation to the batteries.

It is still interesting that the government parties, or the Tidö parties, rave about Bromma Airport at the same time as they talk about an investigation into airport systems in which the investigator himself says that this airport can – and should – be closed down. I find that strange.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for further questions on this area.

When it comes to electric aviation in the Nordic region, it is the case that the whole world is currently looking at the Nordics and the development of electric aviation here. The reason is, of course, not that we in Sweden are developing an electric aircraft. One of the areas where electric aviation can really make a difference can be seen in Norway. There, a decision was already made in 2018 that all domestic flights shall be conducted with electric aircraft by 2040. They have their fjords, and one might need to travel 20 miles instead of flying 1 mile straight across the fjord. It is the geographical part in the Nordics that makes electric aviation have very great potential for short and fossil-free flights. Earlier in the debate, the Stockholm-Visby route was mentioned. This is one of the first flight routes where we want to deploy electric aircraft.

It is about precisely the short flights, including those within Sweden. Not all flights need to go via Stockholm if we have electric aviation; then one can fly directly between different regional airports or over to our neighboring countries.

I also want to mention Bromma briefly. The investigation that the member's party and the Socialdemokrater initiated had as its focus to close Bromma. It was based on an investigation by Swedavia which stated that there was no market situation at that time to keep Bromma. This was, however, during the pandemic, when 90 percent of flights were grounded. Everyone understands that there was no market situation just there and then, in 2020. It was based on this investigation that the government made its decision.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! We Sverigedemokrater understand the value of infrastructure and that one should link infrastructure together so that different types of infrastructure can complement each other and not compete with each other.

When one talks about aviation, it is not possible to exclude the airports. It has been tough for aviation and the airports for quite a long time. It began with flight shame and aviation tax and continued with the pandemic, which has strained the economy for the entire aviation industry.

Just like many other industries, aviation faces major challenges regarding the transition to fossil-free. The transition is necessary but the cost is high. Airports are working to transition, and some are already completely fossil-free. For the state-owned airports, which have more capital, the transition is faster, while for the smaller, regional airports, which must turn over the coins several times, it is a greater challenge.

Electric aviation is already here, and larger electric aircraft that can transport up to 30 passengers are expected in not too long. When these aircraft enter the market, today's flight map can be redrawn, and Arlanda, which today is the obvious hub for domestic flights, may then lose some of that.

Madam Speaker! We are not quite there yet, but we have no time to lose. Much has already been lost with eight years of the previous government, so now we must regain the security in the aviation system. We Sverigedemokrater want all regional airports with emergency preparedness activities to be designated as emergency airports and that they be compensated for their additional costs. We would welcome an expanded and predictable operating support for non-state airports. It is in the state's interest to have a well-functioning infrastructure and accessibility throughout the country.

Speaking of accessibility, we have a specific statement regarding investment support for airports. There have been some typos, so some parts of the text are slightly incorrect. But it will be correct in future motions. We want that in the future, people should be able to apply for funds to, if necessary, expand capacity to enable more departures or accommodate larger aircraft. The airports already have large investment needs in future fuels, regardless of whether it is electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, or whatever the planes will be fueled with in the future.

Judging by the flight debates, one might sometimes believe that a lot of people fly just for fun. But that is far from the truth. It takes time to fly. You have to get to the airport, and it is not always the easiest. Then there is check-in and other things that take time. Few airports have train stations, which is strange. It should be a matter of course to be able to take the train to the flight so that one can more easily combine one's journey.

Aviation is invaluable when it comes to rapid transport, for example, medical transports over long distances, and when it comes to the detection of fire and firefighting in hard-to-reach places, for example, during forest fires. Aviation delivers high-value goods quickly, for example, in organ transports, and the Coast Guard, the sea rescue, the Armed Forces and other actors within crisis preparedness and total defense fulfill an important function.

Flying clubs, glider clubs and parachuting clubs depend on there being regional airports that have capacity for such activities. Even small general aviation, for example taxi flights, photo flights, advertising flights and sightseeing flights, are helpful in reporting deviations that arise – even if it is not the main purpose of those flights.

Madam Speaker! The security issue is important. There have been plane crashes in connection with parachuting where the Accident Investigation Board has established that the accidents were not due to the plane or technical faults. When flying parachutists in small planes, often voluntarily to get more flying time, a number of factors can be missed: the weight in the plane that changes rapidly upon jumping, low speed when those jumping desire it, weight shift when everyone goes to the door before the jump, and the strain on the plane during the climb before the jump. Today, there is no formal requirement for training to carry out this type of flight. We share Easa's view that a formal training should be introduced for pilots who are to fly parachutists.

For aviation in general, the security is very high, but there is always a little more to do. One such thing is to equip the staff with body cameras in order to document and prevent something from happening on board the flight.

We also want the aviation ordinance to be quickly investigated and clarified in order to tackle a new type of behavior where individuals commit sabotage by actively and intentionally opposing flight crew's instructions regarding safety procedures. This has occurred, among other things, to prevent the execution of deportations, and the proposers argue that a problem is that the current aviation act is not sufficiently clear when it comes to such cases. A quick investigation of the possibility of increasing the minimum penalty in the aviation act is necessary. The current aviation act and aviation ordinance are not sufficiently far-reaching, and it is therefore necessary to urgently review which acts should be considered punishable.

Madam Speaker! Bromma Airport shall be preserved. It is part of the agreement in the Tidö Agreement. However, I did not intend to speak much more about Bromma, as a great deal has been said about it in the debate.

I move, in conclusion, for approval of reservation 16 on increased security during flights.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Jimmy Ståhl for the speech. You concluded by saying that you did not intend to speak so much about Bromma, so we will do that in the exchange of remarks instead.

I believe it was in the exchange with Kadir Kasirga that you said there was an economy in the airport and that companies wanted to buy it, and you wondered why the Social Democrats had not let Swedavia sell it. But the fact that an actor says they want to buy something does not always mean they want to. There are large interests that want to make it sound like there is an economy in this, but Bromma is a loss-making venture according to Swedavia, also before corona.

Bromma Airport is not needed. Flying there has decreased by 60 percent, and the industry says that domestic aviation will not increase because business aviation has disappeared and will not return. It has reached a plateau where 40 percent remains.

Member of Parliament Jimmy Ståhl said, as it was noted, that one can sell Bromma, but there are two additional things in the way of that. For the first, the former opposition, now the Tidö Agreement parties, made an announcement so that Bromma now is included in the national supply. The Riksdag must therefore be consulted, which means that Swedavia cannot simply sell. For the second, the land is owned by the City of Stockholm, and the City of Stockholm would never transfer the agreement with Swedavia to a private actor, who furthermore would not be able to keep the airport running. It simply is not possible to sell it; it is not an option. The only thing that applies is to shut down an unprofitable airport and do something else there.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! What wonderful news! We do not, in fact, want to sell Bromma, Daniel Helldén. We want to retain and preserve Bromma. We will do what we can to make Bromma a domestic hub for the future's fossil-free aviation - preferably with plenty of housing around it. I am very happy about the information. Bromma shall be preserved and continued.

One can also ask why the Green Party does not like aviation. In a previous exchange with Helena from the Liberals, we heard very clearly that one, which I think is very strange, speaks of the transition taking so long that one does not care about it. It is surely very good that aviation is transitioning. That is exactly what we want.

The problem with the previous government's policy was that a tax on aircraft seats was established, but the money did not go back into the transition for aviation. I do not understand, Madam Speaker, why one takes money and burdens companies instead of taking money and helping them to transition. It can only be due to one thing: They do not like aviation.

I think that is regrettable. We must be able to use aviation for what aviation is good for, the train for what the train is good for, and trucks for what they are good for. We shall utilize them and run them in harmony. It is not a competition.

I travel by train between Gothenburg and Stockholm. I do not choose the flight, because it suits me less well. In that case, it works for me, but that does not mean that I have an interest in banning flights on certain routes. I see, however, that there is a future.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Good luck with that development of Bromma, Jimmy Ståhl! I do not believe in it at all. Furthermore, when the agreement expires in 2038, the airport will be closed down. No new agreement will be signed.

Previously, the member has spoken about how the government will ensure that housing can be built near the airport. Go out there and see where they are to be built! It is not possible. If one knows anything about aviation safety, obstacle limitation surfaces, and the like, one realizes that that possibility does not exist.

The only thing that can be done is to shut down this completely unnecessary airport and move the traffic to Arlanda. There we can talk about having a hub for domestic flights instead of splitting it up as it is today. If the people of Gotland fly to Bromma, they must then take a train, taxi, or something else to Arlanda to get to Luleå. So a hub doesn't work that way. The hub is when you gather it at Arlanda. That is where the traffic should be placed, so that the people of Stockholm can get the housing they need.

And even if Gotland says that Bromma would be absolutely vital for their operations, that is not true. A great deal of flights go to Arlanda. Would it be completely meaningless? No. One can take all traffic there. During rush hour, when the trains are working, it takes just as long to get to Stockholm Central as it does to get to Bromma because the traffic is so congested, so it is a completely meaningless airport. It should be shut down, and in that case, we should have a hub at Arlanda for the flights that are needed. That is what the future is.

When it comes to aviation tax, I just want to say that steering instruments are used to reduce something that is harmful. We know that flying in the form it has today is harmful because it emits so much carbon dioxide. Then one can raise the price so that fewer people travel. Then the necessary travel remains, and the rest disappears. It is a good way to steer.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again, as we now discuss Bromma, I think it is quite regrettable that there are decommissioning plans at all. However, passengers at Bromma do not need to worry about that in the near term. But a huge amount has been invested in the infrastructure and in the airport, and that one so lightly takes tax money and simply dismantles it is regrettable.

When it comes to Arlanda, I have followed the plans, the investigation, and so on. The problem is that even if the capacity at Arlanda over the course of the day might work, the capacity is not there during peak times when people want to fly. Then we have the next problem with ambulance helicopters and the Swedish Maritime Administration's helicopters. They must have space to fly, and that capacity can Bromma provide. I am completely convinced that those possibilities exist.

If something is perceived as harmful and a fee is charged for it, why don't you put the money back into the harmful activity so that it becomes less harmful? That is where the mistake is made. Instead, the money is put into a large tax chest that is drained.

I will take an example. Now Daniel Helldén cannot answer, but otherwise, I would have been very keen to ask him where the money from the high-speed railway is. It is not there. I have looked, because I would have wanted to invest all these hundreds of billions in new, fresh projects that would have made AB Sverige work. But the money is not there.

Now, as has been said, Daniel Helldén cannot answer, but I thank you for the debate and for the questions.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! The way we fly will change. The EU's rather ambitious work with the aviation fuel transition will make a difference. Aviation's interest in transitioning and the awareness that aviation causes an enormous amount of environmentally harmful emissions will cause the way we fly to change.

This Tuesday, a new law prohibiting short-haul flights within France began to apply. The regulations mean that it is now forbidden to have flights that can be replaced with train journeys on distances where the flight takes at most two and a half hours to complete. It is a completely reasonable measure, but it requires one thing above all if it is to be introduced in Sweden: that the trains run, that there are fast trains, and that they have many railway tracks to run on.

The government has done its best to ensure that the train cannot compete with aviation in any way, and it is both baffling and sad. It is not actually reasonable to fly from Malmö to Stockholm, but it is also not reasonable that Sweden should not have fast trains. It is not reasonable that between Malmö and Stockholm one should sit with signal errors in Alvesta, leaf fall in Nässjö, and train queues in Mjölby. But aviation was needed and is part of the infrastructure in Sweden's very elongated country.

The development of fossil-free aviation is exciting but will take time. Small electric planes will not be flying between our towns in the countryside in the coming years. According to VTI, electric aviation can break through as early as 2040, and the flights will be smaller and slower than today's flights.

The report that the Committee on Transport is now debating also concerns the proposition Scandinavian Aviation Policy. Vänsterpartiet considers it perfectly acceptable to approve that the established Scandinavian aviation cooperation continues and shall form the basis for the Scandinavian common work in the aviation field. Significantly more must, however, be done to reach the climate goals. The Swedish state is a significant owner of SAS Group and can therefore place significantly higher demands on the company's climate work. We develop these arguments in Vänsterpartiet's specific statement.

Madam Speaker! There are quite a lot of airports in Sweden, and a good number of them are not economically viable at all and need significant subsidies from, among others, the Swedish municipalities.

How many airports Sweden should have is a rather difficult nut to crack. I can think it is completely unreasonable that we have airports in every town along the Södra stambanan - Jönköping, Linköping, Norrköping and Nyköping. We know that the infrastructure that exists is used. If there are airports, they are used.

There is also an economic imbalance within the airport system, which means that the large state-owned airports within Swedavia are making a profit and others, with a few exceptions, are making a loss. In Linköping Municipality, for example, they have closed four primary schools and eleven preschools but spent 40 million on the municipal airport. In Norrköping Municipality, they decided yesterday to close five preschools and three primary schools, including my son's primary school. At the same time, they are spending 30 million on the municipal airport.

It is about priorities. Do we want children to go to school? Or should the municipalities' money be spent on airports, which we already have, in every small town along the southern main line?

At the same time, we must be aware that airports are needed from a total defense perspective. They are needed for ambulance flights and for the Armed Forces. And because security in the world is constantly challenged, standby airports are needed for Sweden's resilience.

What number of airports we should have is a difficult question. But we must be aware of what the Swedish taxpayers' money shall be used for.

In this matter, Vänsterpartiet has no own reservation but a special statement. I will therefore not move for approval of any special reservation.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker and Linda W Snecker! I feel compelled to speak out a little.

It has not escaped anyone's notice that in France, they want to ban short flights on routes where trains travel in about two and a half hours. Linda W Snecker took Malmö-Stockholm as an example. Today, a so-called high-speed train between Malmö and Stockholm takes approximately 4 hours and 30 minutes. That is significantly longer than the flight, which takes just over 1 hour. There, one has, therefore, enormous advantages. Not even the high-speed train—those plans have been scrapped—would have met the time that France has in its prohibition documents.

Madam Speaker! I still feel compelled to ask a rhetorical question to Linda W Snecker. If the high-speed railway had been built, when would it have been finished? It would be interesting to know. It still would not have succeeded in reaching the time that France set, but it would be interesting to know, given how long it takes to build infrastructure today.

Another thing that Linda W Snecker raised in her speech was priorities. It is difficult to prioritize. But for example, medical transports via aircraft and fire-fighting aircraft cannot be managed without aircraft. But I believe we can take that in the next turn.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I love talking about the Left Party's policies. This is an excellent reason to once again bring up that the Left Party wants to invest 700 billion in infrastructure. We have an enormous investment budget where we want to loan-finance the high-speed railways, precisely in order to be able to change the way we transport ourselves in Sweden.

Short-haul flights must be challenged. Yes, there will be electric aviation, but it is not here now. And it will surely take exactly the same amount of time to build the new trunk lines and, if Vänsterpartiet had been allowed to decide, the high-speed railways. It takes time. But it is absolutely necessary.

Aviation will be needed in Sweden. We have an awfully long country.

If we compare it with France, we would not make it between Stockholm and Malmö in two and a half hours. But in, for example, three hours, one could transport oneself from Stockholm to both Gothenburg and Malmö, if we had the courage to actually build the infrastructure that Sweden needs.

Many in the Committee on Transport are on the same train, which runs from Malmö to Stockholm. We shake our way through large parts of Sweden, and since the condition of the main line today is under all criticism, we run from Central Station to the committee room to make it in time.

Above all, more railway needs to be built so that we can separate the high-speed trains from the freight trains. But that is what Jimmy Ståhl and the government say no to.

Madam Speaker! My question to Jimmy Ståhl is what our tax money is actually supposed to go towards. Does Jimmy Ståhl think it is reasonable that one, as in Linköping, closes eleven preschools and four primary schools but spends 40 million on an airport that only runs at a financial loss? It is appalling to handle tax money in that way.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! If we had built the high-speed railway, we would have been in the grave a long time ago. I did not hear any time aspect regarding that.

Sweden is an elongated country. That is correct.

Regarding priorities, I unfortunately do not sit on the municipal executive board in any of the Köping municipalities and therefore have no idea what they spend their money on. But of course, tax revenue should go to welfare. It should be a service. Even the infrastructure is a service.

Madam Speaker! The railway does not sustain itself. The railway is also tax-financed. The railway costs billions and billions, and the revenues are tiny.

It sounds quite interesting to borrow 700 billion. The question is only how they are to be paid back, Madam Speaker. It is no small amount of money. The entire investment in high-speed rail should at least fit. But then what? How are we to pay back that money, Linda W Snecker?

If we, according to the Left Party's model, are to have ten state-owned airports, we can almost shut down aviation. Sure, we have Arlanda and Landvetter. But what shall we say to all those who live near the smaller airports in the Swedish interior? They have no use for a train that runs between Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. We need to strengthen the Inlandsbanan, expand the Ostkustbanan and Norrbotniabanan and strengthen the cross-country lines. That is a lot. Still, the travel time by train is incredibly long, Madam Speaker.

Aviation is needed in any case. We are not going to shut down anything. I think we should invest in more infrastructure.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! If Jimmy Ståhl had voted for the Left Party's budget motion, he would have received all the tracks in Sweden's interior and the high-speed train. We must, in fact, finance infrastructure with, among other things, the money we have in the budget, but when we make these large investments, which new main lines entail, we must also use loan financing.

If you and I buy a house, we do not pay off that house in a year. But we handle the state's money. We think that huge investments will come into budget balance in a year. That is not how it works. The railway we have today is more than a hundred years old, and we still use it. It is with that perspective that we must look at investments in infrastructure.

It is large investments that benefit all of Sweden, whether it concerns investments in double tracks on the Malmbanan, which Vänsterpartiet also wants, or in high-speed trains. It is also about ensuring that the airports we are to have in Sweden function for more than just charter flights or flights for business travelers. In that case, they must be standby airports that we can use in times like these, when the world is more threatened. We must have ambulance flights and fire-fighting flights, and we must be able to transport organs. And the Försvarsmakten shall be able to use the airports.

But then one must dare to prioritize for real. Otherwise, it becomes like with all my municipalities; one spends a lot of municipal tax money so that charter tourists can be able to fly from Norrköping Airport. Is that really how we should prioritize? Or should we see to it that we have emergency airports, double tracks on the Malmbanan and get new trunk lines? Then we can transport ourselves electrically, which the train has been doing for more than a hundred years, unlike electric aviation which does not yet exist.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! When I listen to the member's speech, I actually become a little concerned. Sweden is today internationally and within the EU involved in developing clear rules for if the transition is to be made and how it shall proceed. The member highlighted in their speech France as an example because they have chosen to bring the plan down to earth when it concerns some domestic flight routes. At the same time, evaluators in just France argue that it gives marginal effects on emissions.

A question I think residents in Sweden deserve an answer to from the member is whether the member means that it is more important to take down the planes from the air than to transition and continue traffic in Sweden. A second question, Madam Speaker, is what percentage the member expects such a measure would contribute when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions in Sweden.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is extremely important when making infrastructure investments that one invests in what is fossil-free and electrifiable. That is not what the government is doing today. They do not want to build new main lines at all, even though the railway has been electrified for over a hundred years. The government pits different modes of transport against each other but simultaneously repeats that is not what they are doing. The words do not match the actions. The government obviously wants to talk much more about electric aviation instead of investing in the railway.

We cannot continue flying in the same way as we do today. We will not fly in the same way as we do today. Companies are changing their climate policies, stop flying and say that it is the railway that counts. It is only the government that is intensively backing into the future and does not want to change anything.

Madam Speaker! Let me tell Member Oskar Svärd what happens when his party is involved in governing in different municipalities. The Moderates in Norrköping have, among other things, chosen to close my son's primary school along with two other primary schools and five preschools. They were closed yesterday. Then they spent 30 million on Norrköping's airport so that charter travelers can be able to travel to Greece and Croatia this summer.

In Linköping Municipality, where Oskar Svärd's party also sits and governs, they have closed eleven preschools and four primary schools and triumphed with 40 million for the airport. That is no way to govern. It is no way to take responsibility, neither for the climate transition nor for the municipal economy. The municipalities are on their knees due to missing state grants, and the Moderaterna are pumping millions into airports that no one will want to use in the future.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very clear that the member is not answering my two questions. She talks about preschools and schools in Norrköping, which is quite important – I myself have worked with school policy for eight years – and she also highlights the railway and that we are placing far too much focus on aviation here today. But it is not strange that we do. It is the aviation report that we are here to debate – that is, not the railway, not preschools and not schools, above all not in Norrköping.

I think this demonstrates the Left Party's unreasonable policy, which completely assumes that the emissions profile in 2033 will be the same as it is this year. It is as if research and development regarding electric aviation, hydrogen, biofuels, and the electrification of airports do not exist.

Madam Speaker! Domestic flights account for approximately 1 percent of Sweden's emissions. International flights account for 2-3 percent. My question therefore becomes again how many percent the member believes Sweden would save when it comes to carbon dioxide by closing certain domestic flight routes and moving the planes from the air to the ground with the Left Party's extremely aviation-hostile policy.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I cannot quite agree that the Left Party has an extremely anti-aviation policy. I have just spoken about the importance of having functional airports. It is about a perspective of preparedness and that, among other things, the Armed Forces and the ambulance flights shall function.

I unfortunately will not be able to give the member an answer regarding percentages when it comes to what it would mean to replace flight routes with railways, because it will not become a reality with the government's policy. With the government's policy, one will not be able to replace any flight route with a railway because the government does not want to build new main lines. Regardless of what speed the trains will have, the government does not want more railway. On the other hand, one is happy to look forward toward 2040, 2050, or 2060, when there might be electric aviation. I do not think that is sufficient.

The climate crisis is here and now, and given the government's policy, its stance on among other things the reduction obligation, that the carbon-neutral travel deduction was removed and that bonus-malus was removed overnight, the talk about transition, climate goals, and electrification of the vehicle fleet is just empty talk.

We can develop as much electric aviation as we want - let's do it quickly! I saw that the government wants more research on aviation. That is good. It is needed. But we cannot believe that it is possible to replace railways with electric aviation. Such masses of people electric aviation will not be able to take, no matter how much Oskar Svärd wishes it were so.

We must do things that make a difference here and now for the climate. This means, among other things, that more railways must be built and that aviation must decrease. It is not rocket science. It is what we all know. Today, aviation fuels are not fossil-free at all.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! If Sweden is to meet the commitments in the Paris Agreement, we must drastically and immediately reduce our fossil dependency. This applies across all sectors.

The sector that accounts for disproportionately large emissions is aviation. It is an area where we must act. We must reduce flying. At the same time, we will continue to need to fly to the destinations and for the purposes that cannot be reached or managed in any other way. There, we will ensure that we have aviation that is as resource-efficient, effective, and climate-smart as possible.

We must work to achieve aviation that leaves the fossil era behind. But we know that aviation is a difficult sector to make climate-efficient. The emissions are extensive, and the improvements that are made have always been offset by increased flying. Swedes' total flying emits around 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year, which is as much as car travel and significantly more than the steel industry and the cement industry in Sweden, according to researchers at Chalmers. These are enormous emissions.

Much is said about the promised future of electric aviation. Everything, however, indicates that electric aviation as a replacement for today's aviation and its aviation fuel will not arrive in the foreseeable future. The airlines say that electric aviation on domestic flights will not be able to replace a single existing flight route. And then we are talking about domestic flights, i.e., short journeys compared to international aviation.

We must act on what we know. We know that aviation emits unreasonable amounts of carbon dioxide at a time when we must inexorably reduce carbon emissions. We know that aviation will be fueled with aviation kerosene for the foreseeable future. Then we must find ways to reduce air travel and upgrade other types of transport on all routes where it is possible. That is most often about trains. Regrettably, the government - the Tidö parties - has halted the expansion of new railways in Sweden and instead sings the praises of aviation, which is extremely, extremely serious.

The industry organization Svenskt Flyg says that they will mix 50 percent biofuel into the aviation fuel by 2025 and that by 2030, that is in six years, they will be fossil-free. It is commendable, but there is nothing to indicate that any of this will become a reality. There is no replacement fuel, and it is four to five times more expensive to add it than to use the fuel one has today. Today, in 2023, the mixture of biofuel in aviation fuel is 1 percent. The equation does not add up. And it is even worse for international flights.

The problem with the song about aviation's fossil-free status is that we risk continuing to fly as if nothing has happened; after all, it becomes fossil-free. This becomes an incentive to do nothing at the root, that is, to reduce flying.

We must stop flying to the same extent as today. We must keep in mind that we fly less today than before the corona pandemic. Domestic flights have been halved in some relations. New ways of working have emerged, which is quite excellent, if not sufficient. More must be done, and we cannot barrel on as the government does and say that we shall fly more. It will not work.

France is now going to ban domestic flights on shorter distances. It is completely right, and Sweden should follow suit. For example, the Stockholm-Gothenburg route should be discontinued immediately.

Before the upcoming Council of Ministers meeting in the EU, France, Austria, the Netherlands, and Ireland will propose that private jet flights be banned. These planes account for disproportionately large carbon emissions per passenger and are unnecessary aviation consumption. Sweden should also follow suit here, and the government should support this initiative in the EU when they fly down to the meeting shortly.

A discussion is ongoing regarding Sweden's airport system and regional aviation. The government wants to create more state-owned airports and provide larger subsidies to the regional ones – simply to increase flying.

We must sit down and go through to what extent these airports are actually needed. According to investigations, the corona crisis is being used today as an alibi to find reasons for airports to receive state financial protection. Almost all airports are now claimed to be needed as emergency airports. In my opinion, it is to an all too high degree a question of state subsidies at the same time as we need to reduce flying.

The state investigator Peter Norman also seems to have completely forgotten in his analyses that there are trains in Sweden. Flight routes are justified by lack of accessibility, despite the fact that the trains exist or that tracks are being expanded to precisely the locations concerned. Nothing is stated about this in the state investigation.

There is something truly alarming for Swedish aviation: that someone takes the train down to Kastrup and flies from there. God forbid! You are not allowed to do that, according to those who are involved in these matters. Arlanda is obviously the absolute most important thing we have in the country, not how one transports oneself. The question of aviation in Sweden has capsized.

Madam Speaker! Bromma Airport is a side issue with many implications. The large area where the airport is located has for almost a decade been designated as an urban development area and constitutes an important part of Stockholm's housing supply potential. By using the land at Bromma Airport, which is owned by the City of Stockholm, between 30,000 and 50,000 homes could be built and up to 100,000 people could be provided with a home there. A land value of over 40 billion lies there in the aviation's grip.

Numerous investigations over the recent years have shown that Bromma Airport can be closed without affecting the need or capacity for air traffic in the country. Most recently, the investigator Peter Norman expressed this in his investigation on the airport system. He says that Bromma can be closed. He says that it is his own view. Obviously, the government told him that the investigation itself must not reach this conclusion. It is interesting to read his markings: He says one thing, but the investigation says something else, even though it is he who is the investigator.

According to investigations that exist regarding Arlanda, there is a need to adjust the terminals in order to be able to consolidate the traffic there. Additionally, something called the "optimization" of Arlanda airport is needed, meaning that the terminals must become smoother. Nothing more is needed at Arlanda. One can move the traffic there so that we get a good hub and can have both the Swedish domestic flights and the international flights there.

Even before the corona pandemic, Bromma could have been shut down without any problems. It can still be done. Now that only 40 percent of the traffic remains, the airport has done its job. Swedavia can shut it down. The Riksdag should simply say that Bromma Airport shall be moved out of the national airport system.

The aviation industry says that domestic flights have stabilized at a permanently low level. But the government still wants to keep Bromma, even though it is foolish and harmful. It is harmful for Stockholm, and it is harmful for Swedavia, which is burdened with a loss-making and unnecessary airport. Bromma should be closed down.

Madam Speaker! I fundamentally support the Social Democratic motion concerning the closure of Bromma Airport. But since they simultaneously want to expand and increase the capacity at Arlanda, which in my opinion was not needed – no investigation actually says that it was needed – I cannot stand behind it. I also cannot stand behind the government parties' justification for the rejection. Therefore, I move for approval of the Left Party's and the Green Party's reservation of motive number 8.

Madam Speaker! I finally want to highlight my and the Center Party's joint reservation 19 regarding obstacle lighting on wind turbines. They stand and shine even though it is not needed and even though there is other technology used in other countries. Sweden should also use that. One should ensure that this is introduced immediately. We must have wind power that is accepted. Then they should not stand and blink through the nights all around the country. To save time during the voting, I choose, however, not to move for approval of this reservation.

Madam Speaker! Aviation's climate impact must be drastically reduced.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask approximately the same question to Member Helldén as I asked Member Snecker a moment ago.

The Member of Parliament points out that France has now passed a law through which they are moving flights from the air to the ground and thinks that is the solution to aviation's emissions. The Member of Parliament does not see the technological development and research that is currently taking place in the area regarding electric aviation. The Member of Parliament and his party, Miljöpartiet, constantly claim that aviation constitutes the collective climate threat for the world's total emissions. Swedish aviation is apparently devastating. I do not, however, share the Member of Parliament's view on the matter.

Madam Speaker! Let me therefore ask the same question that I asked earlier. What percentage of Sweden's carbon dioxide emissions would a measure like France's save? Does the member mean that it is better for Sweden and Sweden's inhabitants to take aviation off the air instead of transitioning to and electrifying aviation and introducing biofuels into aviation?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Oskar Svärd for the questions. The Member is putting certain words in my mouth. Those are strong words that I do not believe I said.

I see a technological development within the aviation industry regarding both electric aviation and hydrogen aviation. Much research is being conducted in that area. I do not believe, however, that electric aviation will be available within the timeframe in which we must act. We have heard earlier in the debate that one might possibly hop between small regional airports, that is, not have the aviation we have today. Then we increase the flying, but we do not get rid of the problem. Yes, we can feed in biofuels. But there will come a limit where it no longer works.

Therefore, we must reduce flying. To stop flying between Stockholm and Gothenburg is an appropriate measure. It is a flight route that is not needed. One can take the train that distance, and it runs smoothly. Those who, strangely enough, board this flight may need to think differently. It is a matter of behavioral changes that have spinoff effects. If it is too simple to fly, one flies too much. We can get rid of certain flight routes that we simply do not need. Stockholm-Gothenburg is an excellent example.

I look forward to this. I really hope that it will happen. But it will not happen during this government's time, because the Tidö government is going to fly and not take trains.

Member of Parliament Oskar Svärd and I spoke in a previous exchange about Bromma Airport. I know that he comes from Kumla, and we have previously talked a little bit about Örebro. In Örebro, they decommissioned the airport at Ladugårdsängen and built lots of housing, which is great. Give Stockholm that opportunity too!

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is Europe's longest country. It is sparsely populated and is dependent on exports, meetings, and communications. We have a well-developed infrastructure regarding airports. In my opinion, we should support, help, and prepare for the future's fossil-free aviation.

Member of Parliament Helldén speaks about electric aviation as something that will come 20-30 years into the future and will not be able to replace the routes that exist today. But when I meet the industry, they say that by 2028 or at the latest 2030, we will have commercial traffic with electric aircraft in Sweden. It will create new air bridges between places where there may not be commercial traffic to the same extent today. I think this is good. It is something we should safeguard and support moving forward.

The government highlights high-speed trains. But the high-speed trains were supposed to be climate-neutral by 2060 or 2070, and it is about us taking trains instead of flying.

I think that Miljöpartiet should join the government's work with electrifying aviation, transitioning aviation, and ensuring that we get increased blending of biofuels. I do not think that the transport sectors should be pitted against each other. I want to see a Sweden that holds together, and therefore I raise just the parts I am now raising.

Madam Speaker! Örebro has a fantastic airport: Örebro Airport. I do not think it is good to have two airports just in Örebro län, with 300,000-350,000 inhabitants.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Stockholm is apparently supposed to have two airports, but not Örebro. They had a very fine housing fair there, and they are building like crazy. That is exactly what is needed here as well.

I also think that Sweden should hold together. It is important that we hold together and that one can transport oneself in the country in a smart way. We shall also do it in a climate-smart way. Then we shall concentrate aviation to those lines where it is truly needed. We have talked about it before. Stockholm-Kiruna is one example. Stockholm-Luleå is also troublesome. Kiruna is incredibly troublesome – one has to sleep overnight on the train. Luleå works theoretically, but only once we have expanded the Norrbotniabanan and so on will it go well. Today, it does not.

In the places where we do not need aviation, we shall remove it, so that we reduce emissions. When we reduce flying, we can in a smart way keep the aviation that is needed. We shall mix biofuels into the aviation fuel, into the aviation kerosene. Miljöpartiet has been involved as a driving force in that work. But we also know that it is a question of scarce resources when one is to push biofuels into fossil fuel. Therefore, we shall use them in the right place for the right things and not keep flying to the wrong places with these fuels.

When it comes to electric aviation, it is very possible that it could be a question of new air bridges and new lines, as the member said. But this with the year 2028, I do not believe in at all. The aviation we have today and that we have a need for will not be replaced with electric aviation within a reasonable time. I think that is something that more members in the transport committee should realize, so that we plan correctly for the future.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén for the speech. We recently had a short exchange of remarks, and I would like to continue the conversation about aviation and the future.

Sometimes when one listens to Member Daniel Helldén, it feels as if he is building up a conflict between the different modes of transport. I believe it is important that we do not do that. We need vehicles. We need trains. We need aviation. We need shipping. This is extremely important. We also know that Sweden is an incredibly long country. There are many parts that one cannot reach without aviation. It would be interesting to hear what the Member says about this.

We spoke a little bit about Gotland before. For the people of Gotland, it is a lifeline that there is a good connection between the mainland and Gotland. When you talk to people from Gotland, they say that Bromma is the second most important airport of all after the one located on Gotland. My question is why the member of Parliament cannot listen to what the people of Gotland are saying and see that it is very positive for the people of Gotland and for Sweden that this government has now actually put its foot down and said that Bromma shall remain.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the government and the Tidö parties say that Bromma should remain, it is against common sense, I would say. There is no reason to keep that airport. It costs a lot of money, and the land is needed for other things.

We get better aviation - the aviation we need - if we centralize it at Arlanda. Everyone knows that; the industry knows it. There is a very interesting article from the corona period with BRA Flygs owner Per G. Braathen where he lays out the text on how good it would be to have everything at Arlanda. Then he obviously received backlash from the rest of the aviation industry, and a few weeks later he had to take it back in Dagens industri. But there one can read what effects it would have if we moved the aviation to Arlanda. Then we could get a sustainable and good domestic aviation that hangs together in a hub.

From Gotland, one can fly to both Arlanda and Bromma today. It obviously works to fly to Arlanda. There is no reason to fly to just Bromma. I believe, however, that there is an emotional factor that plays a role. When one comes from Gotland – I flew that route once a very long time ago – one flies over the city and lands at Bromma. You see the beautiful Stockholm, and it feels like you have arrived while you are flying in. But it is actually quite a long way left; when you have landed, you have to travel further, sit in traffic, and so on.

When you arrive at Arlanda, you are out in the countryside and see farms and other things. You don't feel that you have arrived in Stockholm, but in reality, you arrive in central Stockholm from Arlanda just as quickly. I believe this plays into the idea that Bromma is the lifeblood. I believe it is more a matter of the feeling that one has arrived earlier, even though one hasn't.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Helldén, for the answers!

I do not think it is emotions that make the people of Gotland say that it is an important airport. They experience that they get to Stockholm in a good and fast way. When a group from Region Gotland was with us, it was very clear that Bromma airport is important. They were grateful that the government has now established this.

There are more things that are important. It concerns the preparedness function. It is very vulnerable to only have Arlanda. In these times, one must also think that way.

Furthermore, there are investigations showing that it is unrealistic to believe that one will be able to build these thousands of homes in the time the member states refers to. The government has also assumed that we will be able to build homes thanks to there being an electricity hub around Bromma. That is something that is important. We also emphasize that long-term perspective is also important.

I also remember that the member himself ate cake when the previous government established that Bromma would be closed. Is that what is rubbing a bit of a sore spot now? The piece of cake was not like when the member ate his cake and celebrated.

The government is now taking the great responsibility and saying that we shall now, with long-term decisions, keep Bromma for the future.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe rather that it might be the case that that cake made the Tidö parties even more eager to retain something that was not needed. It was a bit unfortunate. Otherwise, perhaps Bromma Airport would have been closed. It was, moreover, a good cake.

The interesting thing about Bromma is that the member is now citing reasons of preparedness and so on. In the investigations that now exist regarding preparedness airports, fire-fighting aircraft, and all sorts of things that are being painted out, Bromma is not pointed out. It is not included there. The investigation does not have Bromma as an airport that is needed. No one says that Bromma is needed for those things. It is an airport that is located in the middle of the city and which should not be there. There are other good solutions for that.

It has also been stated earlier. It was not member Magnus Oscarsson who said it. It was spoken about the ambulance flights. It was a very interesting article in DN the other day.

NKS, the large hospital, has procured its own helicopters that can cover all of Sweden in principle, even up to Kiruna, and can fly faster than all others. They manage it, land directly on the roof of the hospital, and do not need airports. It is much safer and more secure. One does not need to do transfers, and so on.

When one talks about these things and tries to argue that Bromma would be needed for it, it is completely wrong. Let the Stockholmers build housing there, and then you can fly somewhere else.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I have now listened to the entire debate. It was interesting to hear. What has come up repeatedly is new main lines.

All modes of transport have their advantages and disadvantages. How does the member view when the new main lines would be completed? As I understand it, it is somewhere beyond 2050 for the state to be able to afford to finance them. They cost 400 billion.

The EU traveled around Europe two years ago to discuss the expansion and future of the railway. The message was crystal clear. If one views the railway as a tool to reduce climate emissions, one has 15 years. Road transport has the potential for the trains and for the large number of new train passengers. That is when they have switched. The year 2035 was mentioned. My question is how the member sees the fact that, according to the EU, the railway has no major climate effect after 2035.

It is also linked to the aviation issue itself. The Member of Parliament also raises the importance of aviation for Sweden to function as a whole. At the same time, they want to ban it. If you remove the possibility of making money on the most heavily trafficked flight routes, how will the industry be able to afford to develop fossil-free aviation if it is not given the resources on the parts that are doing well? Who is it that is supposed to pay for the development of fossil-free aviation?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is as if we must do harm to do good. I do not think that is quite the case.

Stockholm-Göteborg is likely a profitable line where one putters back and forth. The emissions that are there are completely meaningless. If we can get rid of them, we shall do so. It is a good example of where we should do it.

When it comes to the development of fossil-free fuels, electric aviation and so on, it is not so much the airlines' profits in that sense that go towards it. It is other things that drive that development. It is not the case that SAS is pumping in masses of money into fossil-free aviation because they fly to Gothenburg. It is other things that drive that development.

It would be absolutely excellent if we could achieve fossil-free aviation. However, I do not believe that it will exist within a reasonable timeframe when we need it. When it does arrive, we will likely need to have a completely different type of air travel.

The members of the board are involved in the question of new trunk lines and when they are to be completed. It is a question of how one plans and how one does things. If we have studied other projects more closely, we know that certain things take an enormous amount of time because they are done in a strange way in strange project forms and without having economic means in time.

Just look at how it looks with the Norrbotniabanan. Building it will take 20-30 years because it cannot be done in a smarter way. We had a Botniabana that was fast to build where it was done in other types of project forms, corporate forms. That is how we must work when it comes to new main lines. Now we unfortunately get a four-year moratorium, which means it will take even longer. But if one works with them in a smart and efficient way, it goes faster.

The year 2050 sounds far away to me. I do not think it is the final year. It is much earlier if it is done in a smarter way and if one really works on it.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Daniel Helldén!

When it comes to how one uses their money and invests, those who are to buy new aircraft must earn quite a lot of money in order to be able to afford to invest in new aircraft and new electric aircraft. I experience that the member, in some way, neglects the cost of making the large investments in new aircraft that one can start with around 2030.

If you look at Heart Aerospace and what has driven it, American and Canadian airlines have ordered nearly 300 aircraft of it. They see that they will be able to build up a completely new regional flight network that has been lost. This is done with fossil-free aviation, that is to say, aviation that does not emit anything. Electric aviation will fly at a lower level and will therefore not be affected by high-altitude effects.

What I do not understand is why the Green Party is not pushing for the development of fossil-free aviation but instead constantly blackens aviation. Why does the member not embrace the positive development that is made possible by electric aviation?

What does the member, for example, think about what has happened with Fit for 55 and the positive signals coming from Refuel EU Aviation? I do not understand the Green Party's negative attitude towards the transition of aviation. I would like to have an explanation for that.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! As I have said in a number of posts, we are not negative towards the transition of aviation. We have been involved in pushing forward when it comes to the issue of blending biofuels in aviation and other such things that are completely necessary.

But what I stated, both regarding electric aviation and regarding the inclusion of biofuels, is that it will go too slowly. We need to solve the equation earlier, and electric aviation is not the solution for the aviation we have today. We must reduce flying. No one would be happier than I if we could fly with electric aircraft on the domestic routes that exist in Sweden. But we cannot, and there is also nothing indicating that it can become so.

Heart Aerospace has no orders for aircraft. They have a number of so-called options where the airlines, if electric aircraft were ever to arrive, could start purchasing them. But it is not the case that they are ordered; that is not how it works within the aviation industry.

So here we are talking about something that doesn't exist. Everything indicates that we will possibly have some form of hybrid plan that simultaneously emits carbon dioxide and which are not pure electric planes. They will also not manage distances that replace any sensible traffic in Sweden today.

We must look soberly at the aviation we have and which will likely exist until 2040 or something like that. During that time, we must significantly reduce carbon emissions from aviation. That is the point itself. We need to take measures now that have an effect now. We cannot just talk about something that might come further ahead. But we will, of course, drive development, and in that regard, the hydrogen issue is much more interesting than electric aviation.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker and Daniel Helldén! When I sat and listened to the speech, I reacted a bit to the amount of emissions mentioned. In 2019, aviation accounted for about 3 percent of transport emissions and less than 1 percent of Sweden's total carbon dioxide emissions. It is not that much, and this was before the pandemic. Now it is much less.

Madam Speaker! I can delight Daniel Helldén with something that I do not think he will hang on the door: SAS is already offering booking of seats on electric flights in 2028. We are, therefore, very close! SAS does not do this if they do not believe in it and if they do not believe that they can purchase these planes. SAS is one of the stakeholders who will buy the planes as soon as they are for sale, and 2028 is not that far away.

Madam Speaker! I reacted quite strongly when Daniel Helldén more or less thought it was good that one travels to Copenhagen, because then one avoids the emissions via Arlanda. That makes me very concerned. They want to shut down Bromma, and they do not care about Arlanda. Is it the Miljöpartiets strategy to make it so difficult for aviation that the airports cannot afford to exist? That is at least how I experience it. It is truly regrettable.

I think it is very positive and good that we have ambulance helicopters that can fly patients and land on the roofs of the hospitals. But we still have a need to transport ourselves. We also have quite a lot of new Swedes coming to Sweden. But they are obviously going to take the train home to their former home countries. That doesn't rhyme very well.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! When I hear member Jimmy Ståhl, I am instinctively reminded of the question of the return migration train, which was driven by the Sverigedemokraterna. But now they are going to fly.

First and foremost, there are a lot of routes where one must fly, and so that will be the case for the foreseeable future. There will be flights, but on the routes where it is not needed, we will replace the flights with trains. That is the central point – that we can remove what can be removed. We reduce flights, and we ensure that the flights that cannot be replaced are as carbon-smart as possible. That is what we are going to do.

The figures for emissions from Swedish aviation are based on a report from Chalmers where they have looked at all flying that the Swedes do. They have also calculated the carbon dioxide equivalents, and it is equivalent to what the car traffic in Sweden emits. I have not calculated it myself, but I have received it from the researchers at Chalmers. I cannot say much more about it.

Regarding Kastrup and Bromma, I can say that Bromma is not needed. We have a very good airport in Arlanda, and it would also strengthen Arlanda if Bromma were shut down. Swedavia knows this too, and that is why they want to shut down Bromma.

It becomes a bit strange when we talk about aviation. For example, one wants to nationalize Ängelholm-Helsingborg Airport because the accessibility is poor. But the fact that Kastrup, where one can go to reach the whole world, is located a short distance from there, is not talked about. Everything instead revolves around the idea that all aviation should revolve around Arlanda so that Arlanda can receive large revenues.

It is not about looking at something smarter, such as that one can take the train to an existing nearby airport that can handle everything. It is this that I find strange, and it is what I point out when it comes to Arlanda.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the investigation concerning airports, they have truly picked the candy out of the bag – the really sweet pieces of candy. The airports that are proposed to be nationalized in the future are those that are profitable. All the others, they do not want to touch. I think it is quite unfortunate, but now we shall see what the referral bodies say.

Regarding emissions and so on, we have different places we gather our information from. I haven't delved deep into it either, but I read the information that I seek and find. The figures are wildly different; we can state that. Since none of us have researched this, we can leave it there. But I react, in any case, to the large emissions that were mentioned in the speech, because that is not at all the picture I have.

There is also another danger: We live in times of war. In that case, it is good to have redundancy. We must be able to utilize the defense, and we must be able to utilize ambulance flights. Many of these parts have been very positive during the pandemic, when people could be flown to hospitals quickly.

Speaking of taking the train to the flight, as I wish, we have in the near term discovered how vulnerable the train is. Arlanda Express derailed, and it paralyzed the entire possibility of getting there. The flight, on the other hand, has another possibility. One can choose another airport, and one has possibilities to switch and redirect.

I still think that we should build all the infrastructure. It is not that I do not want to build railways. But I want to build aviation, I want to build railways, I want to build roads and actually also gladly cycle paths.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The problem with aviation is not that we fly, but that when we fly, we emit a lot of carbon dioxide. That is what we must move away from.

I remember a time when I was little and flew from Luleå down to Arlanda and got to go forward into the cockpit. It was terribly exciting and fun! I had no idea what was being released from the engines. If it were the case that those airplanes didn't release anything, we could talk about the joy of flying, as we heard from a member here. But unfortunately, we are not there, and that is the problem. We must do something about it. We must ensure that we get rid of the emissions from aviation.

When it comes to emergency airports and so on, it is interesting to read the investigation. Everything now suddenly justifies that they should exist. First it was corona, and then we introduced a lot of emergency airports temporarily because SKR wanted it. We needed intensive care, and the planes flew back and forth. It was understandable in that situation. But then it was said that it showed that we must have the emergency airports also going forward, even though we no longer have any pandemic.

It burned a couple of years ago, and then every airport could be opened for fire-fighting aircraft at any time. We have never had a need for that before. Now the defense is to use the airports for redundancy. If the defense needs airports, they will solve that task in a sharper situation.

The Defense or the Air Force is not dependent on us subsidizing regional airports. There are other ways to solve this. It is the Defense's responsibility to solve that task. The solution is not that we chip in money so that individual airports can open at any time of the day. The Defense will solve it anyway.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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