Aviation issues

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of being an aviation-friendly nation. For decades, people have been able to travel to and from Sweden and out into Europe as well as the rest of the world by air. Business trips, family vacations and general aviation with flying clubs and private aviation grew during a period and contributed to a new way of traveling.

Domestic flights connect our elongated country, from north to south and from east to west. During the day, people can transport themselves quickly and efficiently for important business meetings, family matters, or for a touch of luxury in their free time.

The previous government with the Social Democrats and the Green Party pursued a policy that, in my opinion, was detrimental to the industry, not least with the introduction of the aviation tax in 2018, which directly targeted the ticket price and the passengers instead of the aviation's emissions. The regional airports had a hard time, and then came the pandemic. The message to the companies was to keep communications running – but to the passengers, the message was not to travel collectively. But I do not blame either the Social Democrats or the Green Party for the pandemic that hit the entire world.

Mr. Speaker! Aviation is a central part of our country's infrastructure and has a direct impact on our country's competitiveness, growth, and jobs. Aviation offers fast transport of people and goods, which is crucial for the economy where companies must be able to reach customers, suppliers, and markets in other countries without delay. Aviation simply makes it easier to recruit competence and attract important investments for our business sector.

Aviation creates thousands of jobs not only within airlines and at airports but also indirectly in the form of hotels, restaurants, logistics, and tourism. One example is Örebro Airport in my home region, one of Sweden's largest cargo airports, which contributes approximately 600 jobs in its surrounding area. In many regions, aviation is one of the lifelines that connect smaller towns with larger economic centers and thus contribute to regional development and more equal conditions. Without aviation, I am convinced that many companies would lose their competitiveness and thousands of jobs would risk being lost. That would be very bad for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, Arlanda was a leading airport in our part of the world, but unfortunately no longer. We see how other airports, for example Kastrup, have pulled ahead in attractiveness. But now we are trying to change that.

The Government has appointed Peter Norman as an Arlanda Coordinator to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness through improved accessibility with public transport and better road and rail connections. He will report on his assignment on May 31, and after that, we will also reach conclusions for further work.

I mentioned earlier in my speech the inefficient aviation tax. It is disappearing now. Yes, you heard correctly! The aviation tax is being abolished on July 1st this year. It will improve accessibility for domestic flights throughout the country and also for international flights, primarily from Arlanda and Landvetter. Abolishing the aviation tax simply makes it more attractive for airlines to choose Sweden.

But we do not only have Arlanda and Landvetter as airports in Sweden, we have many more. Here, Ängelholms, Trollhättan, and Skellefteå airports can be mentioned, and many more. The regional airports play a crucial role for a functioning Sweden, a Sweden that holds together – even in times of crisis. The state operating support to the regional airports was doubled during the previous year, from 103 to 210 million. For Karlstad airport, for example, this has meant an increase from 3.6 to 8 million. The government has also provided 1 billion to cover the deficit in the GAS system that built up during the pandemic. GAS is an abbreviation for the common fee equalization system for security screening of passengers and their luggage. It facilitated for the aviation industry and contributed to aviation being able to maintain its competitiveness in a better way.

A functioning aviation infrastructure is also an important component for our country's total preparedness – this applies during societal disruptions, in crises, and ultimately in war. Here, ambulance flights, fire-fighting flights, and helicopters can be mentioned, but also military air transports. I believe we all remember the forest fires a few years ago. I believe we also all understand the importance of ambulance flights, which truly save lives.

A robust infrastructure that functions and connects Sweden creates the conditions for moving materials, food, and troops and is in that way a prerequisite for supporting and protecting the civilian population. Sweden's airports create a high capacity to both manage crises and deter external threats, as they demonstrate a capacity to quickly be able to mobilize efforts.

Mr. Speaker! The Government Offices have established a transport-neutral travel policy. Now I want to address you who work in a municipality or region. Your mission as a municipal or regional politician plays a decisive role for the development of aviation. Aviation is an important part of Sweden's infrastructure and plays a central role for growth, economy, and total defense.

All modes of transport are needed for all of Sweden to live. We must therefore ensure that all modes of transport are given the right conditions. Today, Sweden has regions and municipalities that own an airport but do not allow the staff to travel by plane. It is both unhealthy and a waste of time. It can also hinder the social sustainability for the employees.

Today, one can actually buy tickets where the renewable aviation fuel SAF is included. Invest in good communications to and from your nearest airport and contribute to the aviation transition by meeting the future's electrification by ensuring energy supply for charging infrastructure at the airport!

Aviation's climate impact is an important discussion. Of course, aviation must transition. A transition is necessary and is also underway, but that debate should be grounded in some facts. Domestic aviation in Sweden accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of Sweden's total carbon dioxide emissions from domestic transport.

Under Sweden's presidency of the EU, concrete steps were taken with ReFuelEU Aviation, an agreement that will reduce aviation emissions at the EU level. It begins to apply this year. Today, sustainable aviation fuel is relatively expensive for the airlines, and it is available in limited quantities. The new regulatory framework will promote both the production of and access to sustainable aviation fuels. We also see that hydrogen-powered aircraft, electric aircraft, and hybrid aircraft are coming, and it is pleasing that Sweden soon has two manufacturers of sustainable aviation fuels.

With that, I now move to land and move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mikael Damsgaard, David Josefsson, John Widegren and Viktor Wärnick (all M) and Rashid Farivar (SD) concurred.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Oskar Svärd for his speech!

I agree with Oskar Svärd that aviation is a very important infrastructure for our elongated country. There we have no doubts. But I would have expected that Oskar Svärd might have mentioned something about Bromma Airport. I heard nothing about Bromma Airport.

Bromma Airport is bleeding today. It is draining us of tax money, and it is draining Swedavia, which is responsible for the state-owned airports, of money. But we have a government that insists on keeping Bromma Airport under its wings despite the fact that it has turned into a ghost airport today.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if the Moderates will continue to finance an airport that drains us of tax money. It costs hundreds of millions of kronor annually to maintain an airport that echoes empty in the middle of Stockholm. Is this the Moderates' definition of accountability? Is this efficient economic policy?

(Applause)

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

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

It is true that I did not mention Bromma Airport in my speech, but I had somewhere in the back of my mind that the question might come up so that we would have the opportunity to debate it anyway.

Bromma Airport is part of Swedavia. The Tidö parties have, in cooperation, agreed that Bromma shall remain. Bromma is an important airport for the total defense but also for, for example, general aviation. It has previously been important for travelers and is proving to be that even now. Just in the last few weeks, we have seen that we have received two new flight routes to and from Bromma. I think that shows that airlines want to establish themselves there.

The message I have for the Social Democrats is not new. We will keep Bromma during the time that we have said from the Tidö cooperation.

(Applause)

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

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

So this is an airport that, as I mentioned, echoes empty. I was together with my colleague Aylin Nouri on a site visit there some weeks ago. We met the management for Swedavia and the airport manager and walked around there. We couldn't even buy a cup of coffee. The restaurants, the businesses, have moved away from there.

Not even the market believes in Bromma Airport. But we have a government that is trying to provide artificial respiration to an airport that no longer fulfills its purpose. There is an opportunity to build several thousand homes there. It is about several thousand jobs. Still, the government parties, together with Sverigedemokraterna, insist on keeping an airport running that today is used by millionaires and their poodles. So that is how it is used today. When it comes to the airlines that have established themselves there: Is it eleven passengers per trip?

This is not a responsible economic policy. I believe that the government parties, including the Moderaterna, should reassess the position regarding Bromma airport.

(Applause)

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is nothing new that the Moderates and the Social Democrats stand quite far apart on the Bromma issue.

I am glad that the member is just lifting Bromma Airport. One can lift Bromma from another perspective as well. I have personally visited Bromma and the companies located there. Bromma Airport is incredibly important for freight flights, for the Prison and Probation Service, and for business aviation. But there are also several companies in the vicinity of Bromma that work with aircraft maintenance. As it stands right now, these are not activities that we can directly lift over to Arlanda.

Bromma Airport shall remain. That is the government's decision in the Bromma issue, and that is the agreement we have. I look forward to us being able to travel to and from Bromma to a greater extent in the future than we can do today.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

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

It is obvious that aviation is important. Just as the member said, we need transport that holds our country together and that makes it possible for both people and goods to be able to travel quickly across the large land area we have. Therefore, the different modes of transport complement each other.

I would like to ask a few questions that I have continued to reflect on.

The Chairman stated that the resource allocation to the regional airports had been increased from 103 million to 210 million. But at the same time, we know that there is an enormous need and that the deficit last year was between 500 and 600 million. This means that a few hundred million risk making it so that airports decide to shut down.

The member mentioned covid as an important part. We have a recession, which affects in its own way. We also have a whole lot of other things. The member also mentioned various municipalities' aviation policies. There is not one prevailing issue here, but rather a number of issues that contribute to the sustainability of aviation.

I want to ask Member Svärd if he is satisfied with the 210 million and thinks that the remaining millions – closer to half a billion kronor – are something that regions and municipalities must answer for themselves and work on in parallel. The Member mentioned the gas and how important it is that it has been replaced.

Is this enough? Is the member satisfied with these parts? If not, what initiatives does the member intend to take so that the Moderate-led government will work to develop aviation in Sweden?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your questions!

The Speaker asked if I am satisfied. I am proud but not quite satisfied with the aviation policy that the government has established. What I am not satisfied with is that a mandate period goes by very quickly. But we have managed to achieve very much.

From 103 million to 210 million in one year means a doubling of the operating support to the regional airports. It is far more than what the previous government managed to achieve.

We are now abolishing the aviation tax, which will also facilitate things for the regional airports. We were looking at a doubling of the state operating support. We have reviewed the emergency airports and now have 27 of them. But it is important that the municipalities and regions do their part, for example by allowing their staff to travel by plane in a sustainable and green way, which I addressed in my main speech.

This government has also given municipalities and regions the opportunity to be able to procure flight routes directly. That could not be done previously.

We have done an extreme amount that I am very proud of. But one should never be satisfied, because then one could just as well sit down and stop working. That is not my melody.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It seems to be pleasant to be extremely satisfied. Was it not what the member said, that he was over all the fantastic things he had accomplished, even if he did not want to be satisfied and sit like a sated cat?

Regardless of that, I want to ask a few more questions. Okay, the support for the regional airports has been doubled. But a few hundred million kronor are still missing.

I believe that both the member and I have received emails today regarding how Transportstyrelsen's rules and increased fees will make things more difficult for the emergency airports. There are many parts that we need to bring up.

The Chairman of the Committee mentioned both preparedness and the covid pandemic in his speech. The issue of preparedness is, of course, not something one solves once and for all and is then finished, but it is an issue that we will have to live with for a long time to come. Do we not need to ensure that the regional airports are sufficiently viable? Do we not need to have a minimum level for transport in Sweden in the event of a crisis or, in the worst case, war?

The leader of the opposition mentioned the covid crisis and that the message to the airlines then was "Fly!", but to the travelers it was "Stay home!". Is the leader of the opposition, and thus the government, prepared to take similar initiatives for a plan for a minimum level for transport in Sweden in the event of crisis and war? Why do we hear so little about the preparedness issues in relation to the infrastructure sector when it comes to the purely concrete?

It is said that it is important, and it is often spoken about. But we have still not seen any concrete plans for how this is to be implemented. I am very curious if the member can bring clarity to that.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the follow-up questions!

It is true that I have received an email. I received it exactly one hour ago. It was just before the debate, and I have not had time to look at it yet.

When it comes to the pandemic and its effects, the airports have undoubtedly had incredibly tough years. That is why we added 1 billion to the GAS system to cover part of that cost. I think the government here is making a very large and important investment. Furthermore, the operating support has been doubled, which is also a large and important investment. But there are, of course, more things to do.

Everyone knows that the global situation has changed in recent years. A war is ongoing in our immediate vicinity. This naturally places demands on us. Right now, work is being done in full to see how we can strengthen the infrastructure to achieve a more robust country. All of this involves extremely important issues, and I know that it is being discussed here at the Government Offices. I myself speak about it with our minister, and we speak about it within the framework of our cooperation.

We have done a lot, but there is still time left in the mandate period. I am sure that more things will come regarding aviation and airports.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Member spoke in his speech about an Arlanda that, as it stands today, cannot be developed well and which lags behind its international counterparts, for example in Denmark. He also spoke about the support for the regional airports. At the same time, we have an airport – Bromma Airport – that is bleeding money.

I wonder how the Moderates and the Tidö parties defend the decision that Swedavia, which would like to move all traffic to Arlanda, will have to pay for this airport, which really does not add up and today does not serve any sensible function, with its various regional airports.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your questions!

What I mentioned regarding Arlanda was that the airport has long been a leader in our part of the world, but unfortunately, it is no longer. I am referring primarily to Kastrup, which takes a large portion of the inhabitants in southern Sweden, who would rather travel to Kastrup to take the flight from there. This naturally affects Arlanda's competitiveness.

That is why the government has appointed the inquiry that shall review Arlanda's competitiveness through, among other things, strengthened accessibility with public transport and better road and rail connections there. The assignment will be reported at the end of May. It is a way to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness.

When I spoke about Bromma and Arlanda in a previous exchange, I meant that my view right now is that it is not possible to simply move all the activities that exist at Bromma and the surrounding companies directly to Arlanda. Such capacity does not exist right now.

Bromma is important, and part of the Tidösamarbetet agreement is that the airport shall remain. It is good for the total defense, the Prison and Probation Service, cargo flights, and many others. Bromma has approximately 10,000 movements per year, and I think that is something we should stand guard over.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I could of course speak more about Bromma Airport, but there is another issue that I also consider important. It is about changing travel policies so that one should fly more.

Many municipalities are working with this issue today. They have sharp climate plans that aim to reduce emissions and climate impact. Many have a travel policy which implies that one should try to replace flights with, among other things, trains in cases where it is possible and reasonable.

Now the member says that municipalities should transition and change their travel policy so that people will fly more. He also says that the aviation sector is becoming more sustainable, partly by being able to include biofuels, that one can fly with electric aircraft and that hydrogen aircraft will come.

Today we have a matter where EU directives set the framework for mixing 2 percent biofuel into aviation fuel. It is not such a large amount.

If you are sitting in a municipality where you are truly working to reduce your climate emissions and your climate impact: When does the member believe we have the sustainable aviation sector in place? When is it sustainable to fly? When will electric aviation come, and when will hydrogen aviation come? When should one change their travel policy?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the follow-up questions!

The answer to the question of when one should change the travel policy in the municipalities and regions is: Preferably yesterday! It is extremely important, especially when one owns and operates an airport, that one allows its employees to use it.

When we talk about the aviation transition, we must see it from several perspectives. When it comes to aviation's climate impact, it is as I mentioned in my speech a very important debate that we have here now. The transition is also underway. But it needs to be grounded in facts.

Domestic flights in Sweden account for approximately 2.5 percent of Sweden's total carbon dioxide emissions from domestic transport. International flights, that is, the journeys that started in Sweden and had their first destination abroad, account for approximately 4.8 percent of Sweden's total emissions.

During Sweden's presidency of the EU, concrete steps were taken with ReFuelEU Aviation. It is an agreement that shall reduce aviation's emissions at the EU level, and it begins to apply this year. We see that we are now getting electric aviation, and we see hybrid aviation. We also see that we have fossil-free fuel production in Sweden.

When I meet with the business community and the aviation industry, people say that electric aviation can be here by 2030. But then one must also fly now to show that there is a demand, and that the market can determine which fossil-free alternative the aircraft shall be powered by.

Already today, we have domestic flights in Sweden that fly with as large a share as the EU allows of sustainable aviation fuel. It is something that we must safeguard. But more must fly for the market to be able to transition. With fossil-free nuclear power, it will be great when you can charge your electric aircraft in the future.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It is a motion report but also a sharp piece of legislation that we have to make a decision on. It concerns the government's proposal to a law on the provision and use of sustainable aviation fuels.

We know that work is ongoing at the airlines and at the airports. The hope I feel regarding that is that the government now presents proposals for legislation. But there are fears that large exceptions will be created in it. I hope that the government parties stand up for the legislation and see it as a step in the transition of aviation towards a greener aviation.

Madam Speaker! There are a number of different parts in the report. I shall confine myself to four, five of them.

The first one concerns financing and support for the regional airports. We just heard from Member Oskar Svärd that the support had been increased and doubled. But that is far from enough.

It is extremely serious that the government is not fully listening to the fears held by the airport operators. They will have to shut down, and they will have to scale back. Then one is in the negative spiral that prevents one from creating increased profitability.

Member of Parliament Svärd was also in his speech on the importance of aviation transitioning in a more climate-smart direction. One of the fundamental pillars for being able to transition is having profitability so that one has the strength and muscles to transition. It is my hope that the government will demonstrate this in its various strategies moving forward.

However it may be, the aftereffects of covid remain. We also see the need for increased preparedness. I feel that the government does not fully see the two parts. In that context, I also want to take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation number 4.

When it comes to the alert airports we have, I am concerned. Now we are standing here and discussing the aviation. We have four or possibly five transport assets. Sometimes we speak of broadband as the fifth transport asset. It is clear that the transport assets are interconnected.

We speak many times about transport efficiency and so on. But we also point out the need for fast, climate-smart transport throughout our country for both people and goods.

I asked the member in the previous exchange of remarks whether there is a preparedness to produce a minimum level. There, one looks at transport efficiency from a minimum level that one nevertheless must ensure in times of crisis and war. I do not feel that I received any clear answer to that question.

It is clear that it is extremely important for the companies – regardless of whether it is an airline or a municipal or regional airport, and regardless of who owns them – that they know what applies in times of crisis and war. It can also be about the other modes of transport. That is the second part.

I would like that people did not talk so much about this without putting forward concrete proposals, putting them on the table and saying: This is how we intend to do it. Let us look at them and see how they can work together.

The third part I would like to highlight concerns the aviation sector's climate impact. It is clear that we are concerned that more is not happening. We can point out that SAF is being mixed into aviation fuel. That is very good. We see that electric aviation can come at some point. Hydrogen aviation can also come. But we still lack the powerful initiatives for it to become a reality.

We can only look at our neighboring country Norway and at the type of regulatory framework that has been developed to promote the development of electric aviation. I would welcome it if we could see a similar work in Sweden as that which has been done in Norway.

Madam Speaker! I want to bring up the issue of obstacle lighting of wind turbines. We are talking about light pollution. It may sound like a very small issue, but people experience that it is a disturbance.

The remarkable thing is that there is technology that can be used in this regard. But then one needs exemptions from rules at Transportstyrelsen. When Transportstyrelsen has asked questions to the Försvarsmakten, it has been said that they do not trust the technology. Therefore, it cannot be introduced, and so nothing happens.

It is a weakness on the part of the government that one does not tackle the issues and ensure that they are solved. Year after year we have the challenges that we see where, with the help of technology, solutions could be found, but where the government still chooses not to see it.

Greater flexibility is needed from the relevant authorities to create conditions for development throughout the country. That is what I would like to see more of.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying that we from the Center Party welcome that people are speaking about preparedness in many different contexts. But there is so much more to be done. I would like to see more action from the government's side.

There is a roadmap towards climate neutrality. I would like the government to show that they are putting it into practice.

As a final point, I would like to highlight the issues of innovation. I hope that they can be further illuminated by upcoming speakers from the government parties or the Tidö parties.

We also need to go all out on innovation issues in order to secure the aviation sector's climate transition.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Madam Chair of the Committee on Transport Ulrika Heie!

I thought I would start by wishing the Centre Party great success with the party's new chairman and congratulate Ulrika Heie on her new post as second deputy party chairman. I wish the entire Centre Party good luck in the upcoming election campaign.

The reason I requested the floor was that I have two small questions. The first concerns the aviation tax, and the second concerns Bromma Airport. I will start with the aviation tax.

As Member Oskar Svärd mentioned, the aviation tax will be completely abolished on July 1. In 2018, the aviation tax was introduced by the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet with the support of Vänsterpartiet. But Centerpartiet was against the tax. If, God forbid, the Socialdemokraterna after the next election together with Miljöpartiet form a government with the support of Vänsterpartiet and perhaps Centerpartiet, what will then be Centerpartiet's position when it comes to introducing the aviation tax again?

I feel a concern that Miljöpartiet wants to double the current aviation tax. Analyses show that if we remove the aviation tax now, we will see the effects at the end of 2026. What is the Center Party's position on the aviation tax issue if we get a red-green government?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rashid Farivar, for the kind well-wishes both for the chairmanship and for the upcoming election campaign! I certainly appreciate that.

However, I am a bit concerned if the member seriously believes that I would stand here in the speaker's chair and describe in what way the Center Party would act after the next election and what agreements we might eventually make with different parties. That does not belong in this exchange of remarks.

I would still like to take the opportunity to point out that we see all four modes of transport as extremely important for the development of the whole of Sweden. We are also extremely committed to the transition of aviation. In that case, a number of different things need to be done. This applies in particular to the investment in the regional airports. I want to show how we, from the Center Party's side, truly safeguard the infrastructure itself so that it functions. Then we can have a functioning aviation activity.

But it is clear that the airports are among the absolutely most central prerequisites for us to have a good aviation operation in Sweden. Therefore, I am very keen on, but also interested in and view with appreciation, if I may put it that way, the work that takes place at the regional airports owned by municipalities, for example. But it also concerns Swedavia's work.

So, a lot of very important work is underway to transition the aviation sector, but I cannot stand here and talk about how we would play and act regarding various issues. That does not belong in today's debate.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Heie!

In that case, I can certainly rephrase my question: Does the member think it is positive that the Sweden Democrats and the government are abolishing the aviation tax entirely? That was the first question.

The second question concerns Bromma Airport. I have read the report carefully. We know what the position of the Tidö parties is: We want to keep Bromma Airport, and we want to investigate Bromma Airport's function.

The red-greens together with Vänsterpartiet want to level the airport with the ground and build housing. Absolutely – I respect that too.

But what is the Center Party's position on the Bromma issue? I could not find anything about it in the committee report. This question might be something that Member Ulrika Heie wants to save and answer first after the election. But I would be grateful if the Center Party and the Member could take a stand on the issue.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! The question was: Does the member think it is positive that the aviation tax is being removed?

We have very high flight prices in Sweden, and I see that as a concern. It makes it impossible for people to travel to and from different places. From northern Sweden to Stockholm, for example, we have very high prices. I see it as positive if one can lower those prices somewhat. This can happen by removing a flight tax or through other possibilities; there can be different tools on the way there.

Something I would, however, prioritize even more is to find a way to achieve a green transition of aviation and various ways to accelerate it. Therefore, I would welcome more innovation measures from the Tidö parties. I would like to see a greater development mindset around airports and airlines regarding the climate in Sweden. When it then comes to whether it is the aviation tax that achieves one thing or the other, it actually concerns a small part, if we look at the whole. I know that many think it is positive.

What is the Center Party's position on the Bromma issue? the member also asks. We have the infrastructure we have because decisions were made previously. I think it is important to consider what basis one has for making new decisions. Therefore, I am not prepared in this exchange to say either that Bromma airport must be preserved or that it should be closed. It is actually about in what way we will take a stand moving forward on how the infrastructure should be connected.

We have had a visit to the committee regarding these issues. It was shown then that with more railway in the region, there is also the possibility of reaching more airports that can take more assignments. I am sorry that I did not have time to finish my answer, because the speaking time ran out!

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! During the last year and a half, we in the Christian Democrats have worked with a social construction committee that has developed the policy we intend to pursue to build a better society. I have had the privilege of working with our thoughts regarding future infrastructure.

I therefore intend today to highlight what we Christian Democrats consider necessary for aviation to develop in a good way. After that, I will point out what we have achieved in the government, as well as conclude with a future outlook.

Madam Speaker! Aviation is a part of the national public transport. Therefore, I pointed out already during the previous parliamentary term that it should be possible for municipalities and regions to procure air transport. It is therefore pleasing that this is now the government's policy.

But we want to continue to strengthen aviation, and therefore we want to strengthen the state operating support to non-state airports. We want to review the basic supply, and we want to change the ownership directive so that Swedavia receives a broader mandate regarding military and civil functions as well as regarding GA traffic. I am not sure if everyone knows what GA traffic is, but it is, in other words, private helicopters, police aviation, ambulance flights, fire-fighting flights, state aviation, and flight schools. It is, in other words, everything that actually is not the ordinary aviation, that which one usually speaks about, but which is completely socially necessary.

We also want to develop Arlanda so that we can take up the competition with Copenhagen regarding being the strongest aviation hub in the Nordics. If we are to succeed with that, we must get the infrastructure to and from Arlanda right, and we must facilitate for both international and domestic passengers. The Christian Democrats therefore want that an Arlanda negotiation be appointed.

In the same way as we want to develop Arlanda, we want an investigation to be conducted regarding Bromma, primarily concerning GA traffic and drones. It is difficult to see how future drone traffic will function together with all the other traffic that will go to Arlanda.

At the same time, we must be aware that a new railway connection between Nyköping and Stockholm will change the conditions for Skavsta, which is good from both a regional and a national perspective.

Madam Speaker! The Government has done quite a lot in the aviation area. We have abolished the aviation tax. We have doubled the state operating support to regional airports. We have appointed an Arlanda Coordinator. We have made it possible for municipalities and regions to procure flights, as I have already mentioned. We have improved the infrastructure both to Landvetter and, in the future, to Skavsta.

At the same time, the government has tasked the Swedish Energy Agency to accelerate the work regarding fossil-free aviation. A Nordic cooperation regarding electric aviation has been initiated. Today, we also take a decision on a new regulation regarding sustainable aviation fuel, which is part of the government's negotiations regarding Fit for 55.

In addition to this, the government intends to appoint an inquiry covering the national base supply and Bromma Airport. The inquiry will, among other things, look at questions of what the base supply should look like in the long term, including questions regarding financing and organization. Work on the directives is ongoing.

We can see what the situation looks like for the municipal airports. Already today, they have a combined deficit of approximately 800 million. This means that in several locations, there are serious considerations about closing the airport, which will worsen our civil and military preparedness while simultaneously making it more difficult for the business sector to develop across the entire country.

The upcoming investigation should therefore also look at how it has been done in Finland and Norway, where their equivalent to Swedavia has taken over responsibility for the entire domestic aviation infrastructure.

Unfortunately, it is not certain that increased state support will save the municipal airports, and much suggests that we need to make a larger change to create a well-functioning domestic aviation in the entire country. From this perspective, it is good that the government and other public actors as well as companies are now reviewing their travel policies so that one can fly, which strengthens aviation over time.

Madam Speaker! There is a fantastic technical development taking place within aviation. St1 and Preem are producing new, more environmentally friendly fuels. GKN Aerospace, here in my home region, is developing better and more environmentally friendly traditional engines, while simultaneously working together with its partners to develop engines that will be able to be powered by hydrogen. Heart Aerospace has developed a modern electric aircraft that will change the conditions for aviation.

Unfortunately, we are losing Heart Aerospace, as they will now continue to develop their aircraft in the USA. This shows that we must improve the conditions for aviation if we are to succeed in being part of the development of the next generation of environmentally friendly aircraft.

This change in aviation will place entirely new demands on the airports of the future regarding the possibility of delivering different fuels as well as electricity. It will also place demands on the local emergency services at the airports, which will have to be able to handle different types of accidents and fires.

But even if the transition has challenges, it is necessary, and the sum of all changes means that in the long run we will fly domestically with electricity, continentally with hydrogen and intercontinentally with biofuel.

Madam Speaker! Aviation is a part of Swedish public transport. We must therefore improve the conditions for aviation. When the technical development that is currently taking place reaches full effect, aviation will most likely be a significantly more environmentally friendly alternative than, for example, the railway. This paradigm shift will change our view of aviation and future travel.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Magnus Jacobsson for his speech. We agree that aviation is important for Sweden's competitiveness, for holding the country together, and for being able to transport goods.

I heard Member Magnus Jacobsson mention the Kristdemokraterna working group that is preparing new proposals. I have read about them, and some of the proposals are very interesting and close to us Social Democrats and our way of looking at infrastructure.

Magnus Jacobsson also mentioned the airport investigation led by Peter Norman. It was actually the Social Democratic government that commissioned that investigation, just to say as a parenthesis. The investigation showed that the state needs to take a greater responsibility for the airport system, for the sake of both accessibility and preparedness. It proposed that the airports Skellefteå, Kalmar-Öland, Ängelholm-Helsingborg, and Sundsvall-Timrå should be taken over by Swedavia. This investigation, however, seems to be gathering dust at the ministry. Nothing is happening.

I have heard and read in opinion pieces from representatives of these municipalities that they are concerned that they are not receiving any information or decisions from the government. I wonder if Magnus Jacobsson has any message to them. When will the information and decisions arrive regarding Swedavia taking over these airports?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the direct question from Member Kadir Kasirga. You shall receive a direct answer: No, I have no information today. I must say as always: It is being prepared at the Government Offices.

However, the question is very exciting. What Peter Norman points out is to take a few more airports and include them in Swedavia. Personally, I am not entirely sure that it will be enough. That is why, in the work I did internally in the party, which I received support for at our party assembly and which I also raised in my speech, I said that we probably need to look at an additional solution.

My favorite, to be perfectly honest, is the Norwegian solution. There, they have nationalized it and given it a completely different mandate. We also see what is happening in a number of municipalities. I can only go back to Trollhättan, where the costs are driving. In Karlstad, they are 40 million in the red, if I am correctly informed. It is not entirely certain that the cost situation where individual municipalities are to bear responsibility for everyone around them is either reasonable or fair.

I hope that the government promptly looks further into Peter Norman's proposal. It would solve the situation for a number of municipalities. It would, however, also divide the Swedish aviation sector once again between the municipalities that end up inside and the municipalities that end up outside. Therefore, I am, as I said, glad that the government has indicated that an investigation will be conducted regarding Bromma and that they are also talking about reviewing the Swedish aviation structure. I believe, in fact, that we need to take a larger holistic approach.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I really appreciate that Member Magnus Jacobsson highlights the difficulties and challenges that the regional airports face. One often has to take money from welfare in order to be able to keep these airports open. I also think that the entire airport system is something that should be reviewed.

But there is another airport located here in Stockholm, Bromma Airport, which is bleeding, echoing empty and costing hundreds of millions of kronor. Swedavia has stated in a report that they do not know how to proceed. It is being drained from other airports so that Bromma Airport can remain open.

I wonder what Member Magnus Jacobsson will do – also considering that the Member represents the Christian Democrats, who have the department in this matter. When will we receive any announcement that Bromma airport is to be closed and that housing is to be built for the people of Stockholm, but also for those people who are going to move to Stockholm to study or work?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! After a relatively long introduction, the question then arose: When will we receive notification to demolish and build housing? The answer is very simple: It will not happen during this parliamentary term. We have an agreement that Bromma shall remain just for now. We also have an agreement to investigate Bromma.

Madam Speaker! I am reacting a bit to the rhetoric that the member is using. It is not just a matter of eight–ten people. It is also not just a matter of rich snobs arriving with a private jet, Madam Speaker. This is about ambulance flights, flight schools and transport. It is still one and another vehicle coming from the countryside, including from Trollhättan. I see that Visby is looking at it, and I believe that flights have just started coming from Växjö.

It is also about the entire issue regarding drones. If we are honest with ourselves, we see that a change is taking place in the Swedish aviation sector, and it is not given that we want a medical aircraft to come in and land at Arlanda and have a longer transport distance to the hospital. I know that they have priority, so that is not a discussion. But it still disrupts the system. It is also not given that we want drones that are to transport various goods to come in and out via Arlanda. It is not given that it is the wisest solution.

That is why I am glad that the government has now braked the discussion about closing Bromma but said that we must investigate how the airport should be used. Those who listen closely to my speech also hear that I mention other things that the government is doing. We are now ensuring that Landvetter has a railway, and they are also looking into having a railway down to Skavsta. If that were to be finished, it would be a completely different sector, and then 2038 would fit somewhat better than today.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) concurred.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on aviation issues and the government's proposal for a new law on the supply and use of aviation fuel.

We Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but today I move for approval only of reservation 3 under point 3, which concerns the financing of regional airports, and reservation 9 under point 5, which concerns Arlanda, Bromma and Skavsta airports.

Let me begin in the spirit of unity. I believe that all parties in this chamber share the insight that aviation is important for Sweden. Our country is large, elongated and sparsely populated, and furthermore, we are located on the edge of Europe. For many people, companies and regions, aviation is absolutely crucial for accessibility, competitiveness and for keeping the country together.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want an effective, sustainable and strategic aviation policy – a policy that unites climate responsibility with national cohesion. But this report shows a government that lacks direction. There is no proper strategy and no coordination, only some patching at the edges.

It becomes extra clear when we see what is happening with our regional airports, which some members have already mentioned. Municipalities and regions are sounding the alarm; they can no longer manage it themselves. These airports fulfill socially important functions for preparedness, healthcare, and business. It is not reasonable that the municipalities should bear that responsibility on their shoulders.

Madam Speaker! We believe it is high time to review the financing. In the security policy situation we find ourselves in, where preparedness, total defense, and robustness are required, it is fully reasonable that the state, through Swedavia, receives a greater responsibility – perhaps even for the entire airport network. We need a state-wide overall responsibility, not a patchwork where individual municipalities are made to bear national tasks on their shoulders.

Madam Speaker! Already in last year's aviation debate, I stood here and warned that Bromma was becoming a ghost airport, and now we are there. Regular air traffic has collapsed – 95 percent of the passengers are gone. The terminal echoes empty, and the airlines have left the airport. Still, hundreds of millions of kronor are pumped in annually from the taxpayers to keep running something that no longer fulfills its purpose.

Furthermore, we hear from the government and the Minister for Infrastructure that perhaps things will change – 2065. In the year 2065, perhaps things will change for Bromma Airport. With such messages, the Tidö Government, together with SD, means that they are prepared to tax-finance a ghost airport for four more decades, Madam Speaker. It is an airport that could provide space for thousands of homes and jobs.

This is not long-term thinking, Madam Speaker. The Moderates, Christian Democrats, Sweden Democrats and the Liberals call this taking responsibility. I call it what it is: prestige at the taxpayers' expense.

We have heard the Christian Democrats say that they stand up for the forgotten Sweden, but yet they defend an empty airfield in the capital. The Sweden Democrats say that they stand on the side of ordinary people and the countryside, but they vote time and again for millionaires to be able to fly private jets from Bromma with their poodles.

I think it is time to use common sense. This is an airport that the market has abandoned. Air traffic in the Stockholm region needs to be concentrated at Arlanda. We also heard from the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna that we cannot have two airports in one region. This needs to be done for the sake of capacity, for the sake of the environment, and so that more housing can be built for the new Stockholmers.

Madam Speaker! Aviation policy must, of course, also be about the future. We are now seeing a rapid development of drone traffic and drone technology. We see drones being used to transport defibrillators to accident sites and drones being used to detect oil spills, inspect power lines, and measure timber volumes in forestry. It is very good. It is also a way to streamline public services. We shall, of course, welcome this technology, but we must also ensure that drone traffic is regulated wisely.

In the name of honesty, furthermore, 130 hectares of land are not needed for the drone traffic to function here in Stockholm. They are not needed. I just wanted to say that.

Madam Speaker! The same focus on the future is, of course, needed in climate policy. Aviation must be a part of the climate transition, not an exception. We want to increase the inclusion of sustainable aviation fuels, and we hear that the industry is struggling with that issue. We also want to strengthen the development of electric aviation. It is good to make Sweden a pioneer country for fossil-free aviation. It will require investments, promotion of research, and of course, political decisions.

In conclusion, I want to say that we Social Democrats stand for an aviation policy that will hold Sweden together, drive the climate transition, and build the future. Aviation is needed for domestic travel, international travel, healthcare, preparedness, and competitiveness – but we must also consider that the right kind of aviation is needed in the right place and with the right responsibility.

I again move for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservations 3 and 9.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I think that what the member put forward was well-executed, well-balanced and – in fact – in many respects good policy. There is only one small problem: It was not the same policy in a government position. Then it was aviation tax, marginal support to the municipalities, flight shame and flight bans in social democratically governed municipalities and regions. The most fascinating thing was probably that the agreement regarding Arlanda Express was extended without even coming to the transport committee and informing that one intended to do so.

We are now seeing the effect of that policy. Flight shame in combination with covid has worsened the conditions for aviation across the whole of Sweden. Some were happy about it; there were even those here in the house who, during the previous parliamentary term, celebrated with cake when flights decreased. This hits the rural areas very hard.

We also see how it has hit the industry. Heart Aerospace is a fantastic company that is now choosing to move. One of the reasons that has been highlighted previously is that they have not been able to use Säve Airport. Gothenburg is governed by Social Democrats and Green Party members who did not choose to exchange land so that they could open up and ensure that we can manage to secure this industry in Sweden. We are losing this industry because of Social Democratic aviation policy.

Madam Speaker! I like the beautiful words, but I do not believe that is the policy we will get when S governs with Miljöpartiet. How will you Social Democrats live up to your policy after the next election?

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö and Rashid Farivar (both SD) agreed.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for the questions!

I want to start by saying that we are going to the election as an independent party.

Magnus Jacobsson asked questions about flight shame, flight tax, and the Arlanda line. When it comes to the Arlanda line, I can agree that we perhaps should have acted a bit more, looked at and tried to take it back. The answer I have received, however, is that it would have cost the taxpayers many billions.

Now there is an investigation, or a partial report, from Peter Norman. We should review this together and check how we can make it cheaper for people who want to get to Arlanda at reasonable prices. There is still an opportunity to use the political tools to make it cheaper to travel on the Arlandabanan, and I hope that Magnus Jacobsson drives that issue together with his government partners.

Flight shame is a word I do not like. What has happened in society is that awareness among people has increased. It has become easier to travel by railway to different points. The business sector is undergoing a digital transition. Many business trips that one previously made by taking a flight to, for example, Stockholm, are no longer made, but instead, these meetings are conducted digitally. Awareness among people has increased, and the business sector and companies have simply seen the opportunity to make money.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is, of course, entirely correct that the covid period caused certain technological developments to occur very rapidly, and I believe that is a good thing. I believe it is very good that we are concerned about the environment and protect it and that we find technical solutions that facilitate things. But it does not actually remove the fact that a large number of municipalities, often red, have chosen to also, in their regulations, make air travel more difficult. Since municipalities and regions are a very large part of the Swedish economic base, it means that the basis for aviation decreases. Prices go up, which results in the business sector having more difficulty using tickets and that private individuals who want to fly rarely have the means unless they have very high salaries.

It is, therefore, the exact opposite of the politics that the Social Democrats often say they stand for, and I regret that. I am glad that we have a government that now calls for doing things differently.

I return to another question, Madam Speaker, namely Bromma. Not one word did I hear in the speech about ambulance flights, police flights, transports, training of new pilots, or fire-fighting flights. Think when it burns here in our area – I have personally experienced it at home in Bohuslän, and those who come from Västmanland know how a fire can present itself. We do not want that aviation at Arlanda. We must have an alternative airport for that type of public utility. Not one word did I hear, Madam Speaker, about how the Social Democrats address this problem. It unfortunately seems that it has been completely forgotten.

Therefore, I want to ask: How do you intend to handle a forest fire? How do you intend to handle a sick person? How do you intend to handle a heart that needs to get through? How do you plan to handle the police? You cannot just talk about the rich who fly.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I can refer to what can happen with ambulance flights, fire flights, and police helicopters. There is in reports from Swedavia and from Trafikverket. There is space at Arlanda even for these activities.

I think it is a strange argument to use – 130 hectares of land shall be reserved and blocked for a few millionaires who are going to use private jets, additionally with their pugs. It costs hundreds of millions of kronor, which drains Swedavia's budget. Money is taken from other airports so that Bromma Airport can remain open. I think Magnus Jacobsson should take that with him and talk to his minister about it.

The people of Stockholm want to build housing on the land of Bromma Airport. Today, the market has abandoned Bromma Airport. Look at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce's reports! Look at Swedavia! Listen to SAS! It is 96 percent of the travelers who have disappeared. You talk about airlines that have established themselves, but it still only concerns two lines, to Trollhättan. There are flights that go to Trollhättan. It is not that people cannot get to Stockholm, but there are alternatives.

Of course, the connections to Arlanda need to be improved. There, we are ready to look together at what can be done regarding the Arlanda line to make it cheaper.

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

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

My colleague Magnus Jacobsson said most of what I intended to say, but there is so much to say about how the red-green government over eight years dismantled the Swedish aviation industry and Swedish airports.

I read from the report. In reservation 3, one can read that Sweden is a sparsely populated country with large geographical distances. It also states that it is considered that "an efficient and sustainable aviation policy is of utmost importance for individuals and the business sector and for our country to hold together."

It is the same thing in reservation 6: ”We want to emphasize that Sweden, with its long distances and its location on the edge of Europe, is strongly dependent on well-functioning air traffic.”

For eight years the Social Democrats held power, so for eight years the Socialdemokraterna could have done something to strengthen Sweden's aviation industry and airports. But step by step, the Socialdemokraterna dismantled Sweden's aviation branch and aviation. The examples are many, and my colleague has mentioned most of them. The aviation tax was introduced by the Social Democratic government. They even wanted to introduce an EU tax on aviation. The environmental and climate policy had a focus on reduced flying.

The closure of Bromma Airport is not a new proposal. The Social Democrats intentionally made Bromma Airport unprofitable in order to be able to close it.

Why did the Social Democrats do nothing during their eight years in government?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Rashid Farivar for the question.

First and foremost, it is not the Social Democrats who have made Bromma Airport unprofitable. It is the market that has abandoned Bromma Airport. Let me remind Rashid Farivar that in Region Stockholm, Social Democrats and Moderates jointly decided to extend the Tvärbanan to Bromma Airport. Here, we were in agreement with the Moderates.

It is not the Social Democrats who have made Bromma Airport unprofitable, it is the market. Fewer travelers choose to travel from there, and the airlines have concluded that it is no longer profitable to fly from Bromma Airport. They believe it is better to concentrate the flights at Arlanda.

Regarding the claim that the Social Democrats did nothing, I can give a few examples of the opposite. During the pandemic, it was the Social Democratic government that decided to allocate resources to save the aviation industry from layoffs of employees. The Social Democrats also made decisions regarding emergency airports. It was our government that ensured that Sweden today has more emergency airports, and we want there to be even more.

I do not buy the rhetoric that we Social Democrats did nothing.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Kadir Kasirga for the answer.

I did not say that the Social Democrats did nothing. The Social Democrats did everything they could to worsen the conditions for aviation in the whole country.

The Social Democrats are the only party that can be on both sides of politics at the same time. Member of Parliament Kadir Kasirga argues that the Social Democrats have always protected aviation, but it was the Social Democrats who introduced the aviation tax. The Social Democrats now claim that they have always been in favor of a strict migration policy, but they have also been in favor of open borders. The Social Democrats were against a NATO membership, but overnight they changed their minds and were suddenly in favor of a NATO membership.

Please, Member Kadir Kasirga! Teach me how one can be on both sides of politics at the same time!

It is a fact that the Social Democrats, with Ibrahim Baylan at the helm, ordered an investigation to make Bromma Airport unprofitable on paper and subsequently propose a closure of Bromma Airport. It is remarkable that the member denies facts about reality.

How can one be on both sides of politics at the same time, that is, say something and at the same time do something completely different?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Now this has become a strange debate. With all due respect to Member Rashid Farivar, he is raising issues that do not concern aviation, such as the Nato issue and the migration issue. This does not belong in this debate, even though I could, of course, engage in a debate on these issues with Member Rashid Farivar.

The Social Democrats are the party that has built up this country in cooperation with trade union movements, popular movements and many others. I do not need to give Rashid Farivar a history lesson, because I believe he is aware of what the Social Democrats have achieved in Sweden's history.

What I want to convey to Member Rashid Farivar is that the Sweden Democrats claim to stand on the side of ordinary people and on the side of the rural areas. But what kind of politics do the Sweden Democrats pursue when they finally get the opportunity to influence and exert influence over a government? We see that it has become both more expensive and more dangerous to be Swedish. Unemployment has skyrocketed, but the Sweden Democrats do not come up with proposals on how it should be solved. Furthermore, crime is spiraling out of control. The Sweden Democrats have influence, but what do they prioritize? They lower taxes for the rich and fight for an airport for millionaires and their dogs. That is what the Sweden Democrats prioritize.

(Applause)

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I have a concrete question for the Social Democratic member. From where has the member obtained the economic calculation regarding Bromma Airport? I thought I heard something about hundreds of millions being pumped into Bromma Airport. I recall that Swedavia does not itemize its airports, so I wonder where the member has obtained this figure from.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Oskar Svärd for the question.

Let me remind Oskar Svärd that Swedavia visited the committee, and I recall that Oskar Svärd was also there then. At that time, Swedavia explained how much this costs. Closer to 100 million kronor are pumped in every year to keep Bromma Airport open. This was accounted for by Swedavia at the committee meeting.

But that is not the only cost. Keeping Bromma Airport open and blocking the 130 hectares of land costs the City of Stockholm nearly 1 billion kronor in lost investments.

I want Oskar Svärd to consider whether it is responsible politics to keep an airport that echoes empty and which the market does not believe in open and pump millions of kronor into it for a few people with private jets.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I participated in the same committee meeting and have also met Swedavia on other occasions. I appreciate the member's clarification, but there is a difference between hundreds of millions of kronor and nearly a hundred million. That is why I asked my question.

My next question concerns private aviation. My impression is that the member, in their speech, had a rather mocking tone regarding private aviation and spoke about wealthy people flying around as if it were some kind of hobby flying. I am quite convinced that those who use aviation, including private aviation, do so for a reason – that it is fast and that it is efficient. These people do not only contribute companies and growth to Sweden, but they also contribute hundreds of thousands of jobs. I am completely convinced of that.

My question is: Does the member consider that private aviation is not needed?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that private aviation is not needed at Bromma Airport. Today, private aviation at Bromma Airport has a locking effect. It blocks 130 hectares of land in the middle of Stockholm. It may happen that people, such as businessmen, need to fly. They have their toys, absolutely, but they do not need 130 hectares of land in the middle of Stockholm.

We have an airport, and that is Arlanda. One must look into whether space can also be provided for private aviation at Arlanda for the businesspeople who need private jets. I want to send Oskar Svärd so that the government or Swedavia can investigate how space can also be provided for private aviation. That is my short answer.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating aviation issues.

Sweden is dependent on aviation. We are an elongated country, and without aviation, Sweden would not be able to continue to have a high rate of innovation and increase its competitiveness. It would become more difficult to work and live in the whole country and to visit relatives and friends around the country. We need all four modes of transport – aviation, shipping, road and rail – to function and to function together.

It is important to link the transport laws in order to be able to reach the airports with rail transport. It is therefore positive that a solution has now been found in Western Sweden for a new railway Göteborg–Borås, with four tracks under Landvetter. It will increase Landvetter's catchment area and ability to attract new direct lines.

The government has also appointed an Arlanda Coordinator, with the aim of strengthening Arlanda's competitiveness by improving accessibility for public transport as well as road and rail traffic. The report will be presented by May 31 at the latest. I truly look forward to it.

At the same time, aviation is under pressure, not least domestic flights. If we want the whole country to live, we must facilitate the aviation industry's recovery after the pandemic and with fewer overflights due to the war in Ukraine as well as the ongoing recession.

The Liberals and its coalition partners see the advantages of aviation and the difficult current situation and have taken a number of measures. We have made a decision on 1 billion to compensate for a large lagging cost from the pandemic, when the airports had to keep the security checks open even though the travelers were virtually absent. The alternative was that the cost would weigh down ticket prices and hinder the recovery. We have also doubled the operating support to the non-state airports to 210 million.

We have also removed the aviation tax. The focus in the climate transition should be on aviation emissions, not the flight itself. A removed aviation tax will strengthen accessibility domestically but also internationally, especially from Arlanda and Landvetter. Without the aviation tax, it will become more attractive for airlines to choose Sweden. The aviation tax is abolished on July 1, 2025.

At the same time, aviation must naturally do its part in the climate transition and eliminate its emissions. Swedavia, with its ten larger airports and the regional airports, will soon be climate neutral and is investigating how charging infrastructure and alternative fuels can be provided by the airports. In the aviation industry's roadmap for a fossil-free Sweden, the goal is fossil-free domestic flights already by 2030 and fossil-free international flights by 2045.

It is simultaneously important that aviation in Sweden has competition-neutral conditions for its climate transition. During the Swedish presidency, decisions were made regarding the EU's green transition package Fit for 55 and a package specifically targeted at aviation – ReFuelEU Aviation. The distribution of free emission allowances will cease in 2026, and we will have a common legislation on the reduction obligation for fossil-free fuels in today's aviation fuel. This will drive the transition of aviation across all of Europe. With today's report, we decide on supplementary provisions regarding ReFuelEU Aviation. We best solve aviation's emissions at an international level to achieve an effect, and here we must use the EU for global impact.

On the subject of competition-neutral conditions for aviation, it is also time to review the travel policies that exist in Sweden. Sweden is the EU's third largest country by area and the country with the longest distance between its ends. To maintain and continue to develop a competitive Sweden, a functioning aviation infrastructure is required. It is therefore important that travel policies do not hinder or complicate efficient travel within Sweden and to foreign countries.

The possibility of purchasing fossil-free fuel for flights is not being realized today to a sufficiently high extent. Sweden is still suffering from the aftermath of a time when one did not believe in aviation's climate transition. Travel policies within both public administration and private companies advocate that other modes of transport should be chosen over flying, not least domestically, even if it results in significantly longer travel time for the employee and potentially higher costs. This also risks hindering aviation's transition. Instead of hotel overnight stays and increased paid travel time, the costs could be reprioritized to the purchase of fossil-free fuel.

Technology-neutral travel policies that consider the total cost of a trip benefit Swedish interests and the country's growth, while the climate can be protected and travelers can reduce their time away from home. To lead by example, the Government Offices have introduced a transport-medium-neutral travel policy that came into effect as early as 2024. Now, more need to follow suit.

To reach the aviation industry's goal of fossil-free aviation by 2045, the development of a number of technologies is required. Biofuels, electric aviation, and e-fuels are closer in time, while aircraft powered by hydrogen and reduced high-altitude effects are slightly further away. The Government has tasked the Swedish Energy Agency with accelerating the transition of shipping and aviation to fossil-free, and the assignment is to be reported on January 1, 2026.

Already today, one can fly fossil-free on biofuels produced in Western Sweden by Stl and soon also by Preem. Several companies in Sweden are investing in the production of both biofuels from domestic raw materials and e-fuels.

Sweden is one of the countries in the world that, together with Norway and the rest of the Nordics, is best suited for an early introduction of electric aviation. Electric aviation has the potential to connect smaller, regional airports around the country, including within the Nordics. The Liberals have long wanted to see a developed cooperation in the Nordics to create a Nordic aviation market for electric aviation, where the regulatory frameworks are coordinated. It is therefore pleasing that the Nordic ministers in August 2024 signed a declaration on Nordic cooperation regarding electric aviation. This took place in Gothenburg.

Just as we in Sweden have large producers of biofuels, we are far ahead in electric aviation. Heart Aerospace in Gothenburg is developing an electric aircraft for 30 people and 400 kilometers, which has garnered international interest with orders for several hundred planes, primarily from the USA. The company is an important example of Sweden's innovative power.

Sweden is also prepared for the development of hydrogen aviation – not least based on the expertise regarding hydrogen that exists at the company GKN in Trollhättan, which is now expanding significantly.

Madam Speaker! Bromma Airport shall be preserved. It is an important transport-related part of the Tidö Agreement. At the same time, the consequences of reduced domestic flights have caused flight movements at Bromma to decrease dramatically. We should, however, look at domestic aviation over a longer period and not make hasty changes. Based on our new world, the need for climate transition, and upcoming new flight technology, the consequences and the need for a central airport in the Stockholm area need to be investigated before future decisions regarding Bromma's future.

It is, however, interesting to note that new flight routes to Bromma are now being started as regions and companies join forces, change their travel policies, and occupy new flight routes. These are examples whose driving forces one can build upon.

Liberalerna have long demanded here in the Riksdag that regions and municipalities should be allowed to procure and finance air traffic in the same way as in the rest of the EU. The Government tasked Trafikverket to investigate and prepare to give municipal and regional authorities the opportunity to open new flight routes with a general public service obligation beyond the state supply. Trafikverket's proposal is currently out for consultation.

Madam 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 but also globally. Now Sweden has finally received a liberal conservative government that believes in aviation and has already taken a long series of measures to strengthen aviation's future and transition.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on aviation issues, that is to say, aviation matters. There are 27 reservations in the report, and we Sverigedemokrater stand behind all our 8 reservations. To save time, I move however for approval only to reservation 7, which concerns emergency airports.

Madam Speaker! The history of aviation is as old as humanity's dream of flight. Already thousands of years ago, we looked up at the birds and dreamed of soaring like them. In the 1800s, the dream gained momentum, and on December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers flew the first motorized airplane.

But why do we still fly today? In a debate climate where aviation is sometimes stigmatized and where the bicycle is highlighted by some parties as the only mode of transport for the future, it is perhaps more important than ever to start with just that question. Why do we fly? Well, because today's world is global. People move, families are spread across continents, and goods and services travel across the entire globe. For this to function, efficient means of travel over long distances are needed, and there aviation is indispensable both today and in the future.

For Sweden, an export-dependent country far from many of the world's large markets, aviation is particularly important. If we want to maintain and strengthen our competitiveness, we must have good opportunities to participate in the global economy.

Even within Sweden's borders, aviation is crucial. Our country is large in area but has a sparsely distributed population. Aviation enables regional accessibility, development, and cohesion at a low socio-economic cost. Aviation is an important part of our public transport and creates the conditions to live and operate in the entire country.

A small historical parenthesis, Madam Speaker: The Wright brothers, who invented the first airplane, actually worked with bicycles – they repaired, manufactured, and sold them. The bicycle was, in other words, a prerequisite for the birth of aviation. It is, in other words, perfectly fine to love both cycling and aviation, Miljöpartiet! But enough about history – we are here to talk politics.

The challenges for Swedish aviation are great. Regional airports are bleeding financially. Bromma Airport has been threatened with closure several times, and the Social Democrats together with the Green Party in Stockholm seem to prefer to level it and build housing.

The aviation tax, in reality a penalty on every booked flight seat, together with the covid-19 pandemic in 2020, has hit the industry hard – especially domestic aviation, which has still not recovered to half of the 2017 levels. Since 2022, SAS has undergone an extensive reconstruction and on several occasions been close to bankruptcy.

One could spend the entire evening talking about the destructive treatment of the Swedish aviation industry and aviation infrastructure under previous governments. But let us instead talk about what is actually going in the right direction!

I consider the government's efforts to support aviation to be satisfactory, but more needs to be done. Since last year's aviation debate, important measures have been implemented.

The aviation tax, introduced by the red-green government with the support of Vänsterpartiet in 2018, will be completely abolished on July 1 this year.

The government has added 1,035 million kronor to security costs at airports to counter fee increases and compensate for the deficit from the pandemic period.

The operational support for regional airports is doubled from 103 to 210 million kronor annually.

An Arlanda Coordinator has been appointed to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness.

Arlanda is Sweden's largest airport and our gateway to the world. It is central for business travel, tourism, research, education and diplomacy.

I have personally visited several modern airports around the world over the past year, including Helsinki-Vanda, Kastrup, Haneda and Narita in Japan, and most recently Zayed in Abu Dhabi – an undemocratic country. Every time I return to Arlanda, it feels like traveling 10–20 years back in time. Arlanda airport does not need a new name. It needs to be lifted into the future. The communications to and from the airport must be improved, both by road and by rail, and Arlanda shall be given the conditions to become an attractive Nordic hub and a star.

Madam Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats support the government's ambition that it should be possible to live and work in the entire country, where accessibility and competitiveness are key words within the aviation industry. We also want to see more money for the infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money. The infrastructure is the country's bloodstream. Without a functioning infrastructure, Sweden will come to a standstill.

The Government's and the Sweden Democrats' historical investment in infrastructure within the new economic framework for the planning period 2026–2037 – which amounts to a total of 1,171 billion kronor – is completely in line with this ambition.

After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Sweden's formal entry into Nato, the importance of our airports – especially readiness airports – has become even more tangible. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson expressed it clearly in his speech at the Folk och Försvar national conference in Sälen in January this year: Sweden is not at war, but there is no peace either.

Madam Speaker! This makes the need for a well-developed and functioning infrastructure across the entire country even more acute. Despite the previous government's attempts to stigmatize aviation and dismantle our aviation infrastructure, the reality is that aviation and airports are crucial in peacetime, as well as during crises and in war. Airports play a key role for Sweden's defense and for NATO's presence and readiness in the region.

Against this background, the Sweden Democrats consider that more regional airports should be operated under state management and that more airports with emergency preparedness activities should be classified as emergency airports.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker and members of the House! Sweden is a large and sparsely populated country. Accessibility is important. It is a prerequisite for mobility and development throughout the entire country. Here is the functional goal regarding everyone's right to basic accessibility of good quality. It is an important principle that must be protected. It is also a principle that we from Vänsterpartiet stand behind and have fought for several times. Most recently was last autumn, when four transport agreements risked being left completely without state funding.

In the autumn, we also saw what happened on Gotland when the flights to and from Gotland drastically and suddenly decreased from two departures a day to one a week. This lasted for a period of two months. Healthcare's ability to quickly transport acute samples and blood was seriously affected, which threatened patient safety.

Aviation contributes in several places with accessibility that would otherwise be very limited, and for time-critical transports, aviation is often completely crucial. There is therefore no doubt that aviation is needed, and sometimes aviation is also the only alternative. Aviation is, however, for that reason not a sustainable mode of transport.

We mean from Vänsterpartiet that we must be able to keep both of these things in mind at the same time. We need a substantive debate on aviation's conditions and challenges with the focus clearly set on social benefit, transition, and what is required in concrete terms to meet climate goals.

In order to be able to have such a substantive debate, the aviation transition must be communicated and planned realistically and be based on facts – not wishful thinking.

A statement that occurs frequently today is that emissions from aviation must decrease, not the flying itself. That is heard quite often. This is a statement that is not supported by research. Aviation emissions must decrease – that is true – but collective research also shows that we need to fly less if we are to manage to reduce aviation emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. It is a fact.

Madam Speaker! There is nothing to be gained by hiding the major challenges that exist. If one paints an overly optimistic picture of the technical conditions available to reduce aviation emissions in the near term while simultaneously assuming constant growth, where flying is to increase significantly during the same period, it risks being perceived as unserious.

The International Civil Aviation Organization plans for and forecasts a doubling of the number of air passengers by 2042. They simultaneously argue that such a massive increase in traffic should be fully possible to carry out without emissions increasing. This is a statement that has even been dismissed as simply unserious from within the aviation industry. There are also more critical voices from within the aviation industry.

Call aviation to action is a group consisting of active or formerly active persons within the aviation industry. They criticize their own industry for sugarcoating the technical conditions that exist for a broad transition. They also argue that the focus for aviation needs to shift from constantly increasing flying to talking more about social utility and identifying and maintaining the most valuable connections so that aviation remains accessible for the people and regions that are most dependent on it.

This is a perspective that I believe is missing in the Swedish debate. Here, we have instead for a long time had a debate characterized by the idea that all aviation is important – and equally important. All airports shall be retained regardless of cost, and regardless of whether there are opportunities to maintain good accessibility with other means of transport.

In my home region, we have two airports with only four miles between them: Linköping and Norrköping. In relatively close proximity, there are also two more besides these two: Skavsta and Jönköping. This is, therefore, a relatively small area in southern Sweden where the distances are short and where there are also good opportunities for alternative means of transport. I believe we must be able to discuss this. But today, the possibility of discussing this type of question is very locked, and that is unfortunate.

Madam Speaker! Aviation, just like everything else in society, needs to acknowledge that it operates in a changing time where the conditions are not static. That also includes the fact that travel patterns are changing.

One reason why domestic flights have decreased is changed meeting habits during the pandemic, where digital meetings have become increasingly common. This is fundamentally positive. That transport demand decreases as a result of new technological possibilities is entirely in line with step one of the four-step principle. It is a principle that the government itself emphasizes should form the basis for the development of the transport system. This is written very clearly in its own infrastructure bill.

Instead of adhering to its own principles, the government however makes a great deal of a point of criticizing regions and municipalities that have adopted travel policies that follow the four-step principle and that take climate goals seriously. Instead of flight shame, this government is working hard to establish a travel policy shame while also urging regions and municipalities – and the Swedish people – to continue flying in the midst of a climate crisis.

Such a strategy stimulates all flying. One thus makes no distinction as to whether the flight is to Thailand, between Stockholm and Gothenburg, or between Stockholm and Gällivare.

One problem with such a strategy is that aviation emissions will not decrease in line with the climate goals. There is also no guarantee that it will be the socially important flight communications that are prioritized, and in that case, one has lost a very important perspective.

Madam Speaker! There is much more to say, but I will conclude there. I would like to move for the approval of reservation 10.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Malin Östh for the speech.

It is pleasing to hear the member highlight the importance of aviation for the whole society to function, but it stands a bit differently in the report. I read that Vänsterpartiet wants to impose heavy sanction fees on aviation. I also read that there is a desire to decommission and demolish Bromma airport. Another interesting thing is that there is a desire to decommission the flight route between Stockholm and Gothenburg.

I read from the report: "I note that a single flight between Stockholm and Gothenburg corresponds to as much as the climate footprint from 50,000 train journeys. Therefore, I believe that flight routes on distances where the same distance by train takes less than three hours should be discontinued." Right now, the train journey takes more than three hours, namely in the best case three and a half hours.

Right now, there is a serious situation regarding defense and preparedness. We want to keep the airports in mind of their preparedness capability, in order to be able to use them if a war or a crisis strikes. With the member's policy, we need to close several airports in the country. In what way does it help us build better preparedness if a crisis or war occurs?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I hope that it appeared throughout my speech that I described the social utility of certain flight routes and the problems and challenges with aviation from a climate and environmental perspective. That was, in any case, my ambition with the speech. I also mentioned in my speech that the aviation industry itself considers that in order to meet the climate goals, we must fly less, not just fly more environmentally friendly.

When it comes to the transition within aviation, there are critical points of view. When one has listened to some of those who have spoken today, one can get the impression that aviation is already fossil-free. Last year, the share of biofuels in Swedish aviation was 1.2 percent – this despite the fact that there has been a reduction obligation for aviation in Sweden since 2021. Or did it? It is going incredibly slowly, and the challenges are also extremely large. Therefore, I believe that we will need to prioritize regarding aviation. That is the bitter truth.

I have a couple of questions back to the member. What are the municipalities that host a regional airport expected to contribute in terms of tax funds today? Norrköping, a municipality located near where I live, contributes 30 million annually to a charter airport. Does the member see it as a municipal core mission to work in that way?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer and the question, Member Malin Östh.

My answer is no. It is not the responsibility of the municipalities and regions in this difficult security policy situation to ensure that the airports function as they should. I have the same position as my colleague Magnus Jacobsson. We believe that the state should step in and take responsibility for several municipal and regional airports, and preferably they should be operated under state management.

One problem with airports is that it is easy to shut down functioning airports – and it happens quickly – but to quickly build up the infrastructure again is virtually impossible.

In order to be able to maintain ambulance flights, police helicopters, and sea rescue helicopters that monitor forest fires, an airport is needed. With the policy that Member Malin Östh advocates, we must close most airports. How are the socially important functions supposed to function when there is no airport? From where shall these flights start? I hope the Member understands my concern. This will damage both the military and the civil preparedness.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I hear the member say that it is a state core mandate to finance charter airports. That was what my question concerned.

I believe that trade-offs need to be made, and priorities will need to be made. Is it reasonable that I, who live in a part of southern Sweden with short distances, where the railway is well-developed and there are plenty of alternative means of transport, have access to four airports at a short distance, as I described in my speech? Is it reasonable?

I hear your questions about preparedness and the defense's needs, but here I am trying to talk about something else. I believe that we will need to prioritize, just as I mentioned earlier.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by agreeing in large part with everything that Malin Östh said in her speech. It was a pedagogical review of the aviation issues.

This debate covers both a proposition on an EU regulation on more sustainable aviation fuels until 2050 and a collection of motions on aviation issues.

I thought I would start with the EU regulation that the bill concerns and which contains provisions intended to increase the use and availability of sustainable fuels within aviation.

The EU regulation, ReFuelEU Aviation, is part of the EU's climate package Fit for 55, which is intended to contribute to the EU reaching its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030. It is an important proposal to debate, and since there seem to be those who do not think the aviation sector's climate impact is particularly important to address, I thought I should begin by relaying the Swedish Transport Agency's information.

Aviation's total climate impact, including the so-called high-altitude effect, is estimated today to be around 4–5 percent of the human impact on the climate. Aviation is, however, a growth industry, which means that aviation's negative climate impact risks increasing significantly in the long term in relation to all other human climate impact. It is therefore important to develop measures that counteract the negative trend. So says the Transport Agency.

Personally, I also want to emphasize that even if 4–5 percent of the world's climate impact might sound like a little, one must still keep in mind that 80 percent of the earth's population has never flown. When more people on earth get the same opportunities to travel, the climate impact can increase dramatically.

When our Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson asks us to skip the flight shame because aviation is now transitioning, it is interesting to know what it is that the EU requires of aviation in this transition. What is it that we are supposed to do? And what do I and the MP think about the proposal?

In the short and medium term, it is expected that biofuels will be what makes the biggest difference in reducing aviation's climate impact. That is something we all agree on, isn't it?

First and foremost, we know that there will be great challenges in making biofuel sufficient for all the flying that takes place today. Despite that, we believe that the goal for the transition of aviation fuel is set far too low in the proposal. According to the aviation industry's own roadmap, Swedish domestic aviation is to be fossil-free as early as 2030. In the regulation we are discussing today, requirements are set for a 2 percent blend of biofuel, which is to increase to 6 percent in 2030. By 2050, 70 percent of aviation fuel shall be bio-based, according to the directive. It is therefore evident that Sweden needs to move faster so that aviation can take its share of the emission reductions needed for us to be able to reach the Swedish climate goals. It is also evident that reduced flying needs to be part of that equation.

It is not enough with the extremely slow phasing out of fossil fuels. The directive also does not apply to all our airports. We believe that the directive should in any case apply to those airports that are currently included in the national basic supply, i.e., the ten airports that are designated as necessary base airports in Sweden today.

If the regulation is breached, sanctions shall be used. In the proposal, the Government has provided clear scope to reduce the sanction fee or remove it entirely – more than we believe the EU regulation allows for. We would like to see a greater limitation on when exceptions can be granted from refueling with more sustainable fuels. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the MP's reservation 2 in the committee report.

When it comes to Swedish aviation, I want to emphasize the importance of reducing emissions from aviation and Swedish aviation. If one looks at each individual air traveler, the emission space runs out very quickly, with one or two flights. Therefore, it is extra important that we stop subsidizing aviation in Sweden and within the EU, so that aviation instead pays its own costs and its climate impact.

Major investments need to be made to enable emission-free travel on distances that are difficult to manage in any other way. To reduce aviation's climate impact, a combination of reduced travel and a transition to renewable fuels, e-fuels, and electric hybrid aircraft is required for those flights that cannot be replaced in any way. But much of this technology is some way off. It will take time to replace fossil aviation fuels with something else. This is shown, not least by the bill we are debating today. Therefore, we believe that aviation needs to be restricted on distances that can be replaced with other means of transport, not least trains.

Travel by private jet generates large emissions. A flight between Stockholm and Gothenburg generates the same emissions as 50,000 train journeys – and it is not when one flies by private jet, but when one flies with a regular airplane. During this flight, aviation fuel is consumed that could be used for something else, just as Malin Östh pointed out in her speech.

Despite this, the Tidögänget stands here today – almost all of them – and want that it should be completely neglected that municipalities try to steer away from unnecessary journeys so that a better aviation infrastructure can be achieved.

We think that it should be much clearer what size climate impact a flight generates. Therefore, we would like to see a climate labeling at the sale of flight tickets.

Madam Speaker! As a former Stockholm politician, I also need to raise the issue of Bromma Airport. It is an airport that, according to Swedavia, can be replaced by Arlanda. It entails large costs both for Swedavia and for other local airports, which need to compensate for the deficit that Bromma Airport is today.

In January this year, a total of 850 people flew from Bromma Airport, and most of them flew in a private jet. This is unreasonable in very many different ways. It is not acceptable that this type of climate-damaging activity can continue. We in Miljöpartiet want, among other things, to introduce a private jet tax. Within the EU, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Austria have taken initiatives to review the rules and establish climate measures regarding private jet flights in Europe. We want to work for a limitation of private jets at both the national and international level.

We want to see a decommissioning of Bromma Airport as soon as possible, and we want the government to remove Bromma Airport from the national base supply of airports already now. Swedavia has in a collective assessment stated that it is not commercially justified to continue operating Bromma Airport and that the air traffic can be moved to Arlanda. It is quite provoking to me that the government and the Sweden Democrats today block a central, buildable part of Stockholm for private jets while Swedavia and air travelers from other airports need to pay the cost.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to raise a more technical matter, which is quite important. It is the question of obstacle lighting, which the Center Party raised earlier. Wind turbines and other tall buildings and towers need flashing lights to be visible. There are requirements for this in Sweden. For many who live nearby, it is a disturbing element, not least when it concerns wind turbines. Today, there is technology for the light to be able to be switched off when there are no aircraft in the vicinity. It is a technology that is used in Denmark, among other places. I think that technology should be allowed in Sweden to reduce unnecessary disturbances.

With this said: There is a great deal of work to be done in the aviation sector. And a major push is needed for us to be able to see the smoke of the transition work that our Infrastructure Minister considers the aviation industry is currently engaged in.

I stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations but, for the sake of simplicity, wish to move for approval only of reservation 2, as I stated earlier in my speech.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Katarina Luhr!

It is an interesting position, but it is not new. Many of us know what Miljöpartiet thinks about aviation and flying.

I sat and waited for the member to raise the importance of aviation regarding our defense and our preparedness. I do not know if the member has noticed that war is being waged in Europe. Russia's threat against us has become increasingly serious.

With the Green Party's policy, we no longer need to think about aviation, because all our airports will be closed. They want to double the aviation tax, which the member did not even mention in their speech. They want to ban certain types of flying.

I looked forward to the representative of the Green Party highlighting socially important aviation – this concerns, for example, ambulance flights, police, and sea rescue. The Green Party protects the environment. How are we to detect forest fires? Are we to cycle around and detect them?

What is the member's position regarding the importance of aviation in defense and preparedness? With the policy that the member advocates, we do not need an enemy, because that policy does Putin's job.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

Having grown up next to F17 in Kallinge, I have a great understanding of the importance of aviation for our defense and for our readiness. But that being said, I do not believe that one needs to keep, for example, Bromma Airport, which sucks money from other important airports that we may need.

Our total defense and our preparedness regarding ambulance flights, fire flights, and other matters have been discussed quite extensively earlier in this debate. Swedavia has conducted an investigation where it is proposed that Arlanda should take over the operations that are currently at Bromma airport. We actually have a rather uneven distribution of airports for scheduled flights in Sweden, but we also have sites all around Sweden where ambulance flights and fire flights can take off and land and which do not require an infrastructure for scheduled flights.

As I pointed out in my speech, it is extremely important that we plan smartly if we are to be able to use aviation fuels for what is the most important.

Then the member raised the aviation tax, which we want to increase. We want to shift it over to trains, which are also an extremely important part of our defense. It is important that we upgrade our train system. I believe the member also has a handle on that.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Katarina Luhr for the answer.

I maintain my opinion. With the Green Party's policy, we will not have any airports left for police and ambulance flights to take off or land on. They might need to take off and land on streets or motorways. I don't know, but maybe that could be a solution.

When it comes to doubling the aviation tax, I hope the member knows the situation in which domestic aviation finds itself. Domestic aviation has been halved since 2017. If the aviation tax is doubled, it essentially means a death sentence for domestic aviation.

Is it the Green Party's ambition that we stop flying entirely? Why, if so?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I think the member's questions are somewhat simplified and insulting. I am thinking, among other things, of what he said about cycling around and finding fires and that some parties consider cycling to be the only mode of transport. It is a bit low.

The member asks me if I am aware that we have a state of alert. I then want to ask the member if he is aware that we also have a climate crisis, which is counted as one of the most dangerous and risky things for which we need to have a state of alert. We know that we need to protect ourselves from a climate crisis.

It becomes a very strange discussion if one mocks and belittles an issue regarding being able to expand the rail network but also aviation. We want to invest in those lines where one needs to fly and try to steer to reduce emissions so that we can continue to live a good life. I think the level becomes a bit too low when those who are to govern the country even engage in such a discussion. Of course, we need an infrastructure, but we need to build it so that we can afford to maintain it when we actually need it.

(Applause)

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

Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on aviation issues. We Sverigedemokrater stand behind all of our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 7.

Sweden is one of Europe's most elongated and sparsely populated countries. For us, it is obvious that the entire country should have the opportunity to live and develop, from Ystad in the south to Kiruna in the north. But then we must have a transport system that holds the country together, and there aviation plays a completely decisive role. Unfortunately, we sometimes see a policy that takes its starting point in the perspective of the large cities. One forgets how important accessibility is for the people, companies, and community functions in the countryside.

We Sweden Democrats stand up for a strong, accessible and functioning aviation network throughout Sweden. Therefore, we are also proud, Mr. Speaker, that we together with the government have made historical investments in the infrastructure, which my colleagues have presented this evening.

Aviation is more than just transport. It is about jobs, growth, preparedness, and security. Swedavia's airports handle over 30 million passengers every year, and the aviation industry creates around 80,000 jobs in Sweden. Aviation is therefore an obvious part of our national infrastructure, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike, for example, Miljöpartiet, we do not see aviation as a problem; we see it as an opportunity. We want road, rail, aviation, and shipping to complement each other, not compete at the expense of one another. We want to develop domestic aviation, not phase it out. Therefore, we have long been opponents of the aviation tax, a symbolic tax with little climate benefit but with a large negative impact on the accessibility of the countryside. Therefore, it is an important step that this tax is removed on July 1, 2025.

Mr. Speaker! Our aviation policy is not just about passengers. The country's emergency airports play a central role for ambulance flights, firefighting, and the Armed Forces' operations. Regardless of the primary authority, these should be given status as emergency airports with the right to state compensation. We also propose an investigation into the need to establish more such airports.

We also see how many of the regional airports are struggling financially, even though they are often absolutely crucial for healthcare, business, and preparedness. We must secure their future.

At the same time, aviation must naturally take its climate responsibility. But the solution is not to ban flights or to make aviation a class issue. The solution is technological development.

Mr. Speaker! We want to see, among other things, increased investments in electric aviation and smarter flight routes. With more efficient air traffic control systems, we can reduce emissions already today without reducing people's freedom to travel.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the significance of drones. Drones have enormous potential. They can reduce costs for deliveries to remote areas and be used in forest fire monitoring, in border surveillance, and even within healthcare. But they also pose great risks to aviation safety. We therefore propose that the government develops a clear plan to be able to quickly stop unauthorized drones at airports and review how the use of drones can be made both safer and more efficient.

Mr. Speaker! We Sweden Democrats do not believe in symbolic politics. We believe in concrete solutions for the climate and solutions that make it possible for the countryside and all of Sweden to live.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 21 May.)

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