Aviation issues

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I support the committee's proposal in the report and move for the rejection of all reservations.

Madam Speaker! 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 transport over long distances is required, and in that regard, aviation is indispensable, both today and in the future. For an export-dependent country like Sweden, which is far from many of the world's major markets, aviation is particularly important. If we want to maintain and strengthen our competitiveness, we must have good conditions to participate in the global economy.

Even within the country's borders, aviation is crucial, as Sweden is an elongated country with a sparsely distributed population. Aviation enables regional accessibility, development, and cohesion at a relatively low socio-economic cost. It constitutes an important part of public transport and creates conditions for people to live, reside, and work in the entire country.

Madam Speaker! Let us begin the debate by looking back at the dismantling of aviation. During 2014–2022, a policy was pursued by the red-green governments where aviation was systematically opposed. The concept of flight shame was normalized, the aviation tax was introduced, investments were withheld, and important airports were questioned or closed down. This happened, therefore, in a country that already has poorer geographical conditions than many other European countries. The consequences did not wait.

Then came the pandemic and knocked the legs out from under the entire aviation industry. Demand collapsed, lines were shut down, and the economy for both airlines and airports deteriorated dramatically.

It is serious that the recovery in Sweden has been much weaker than in comparable countries. Today we see that Sweden has lost a very large part of its international accessibility, and domestic aviation is far below the levels before the pandemic. In total, it concerns millions of missing travelers and billions in lost revenues. Accumulated, tens of billions of kronor have disappeared from aviation's financing.

Madam Speaker! One cannot proceed without asking the opposition: Congratulations! You wanted to tear down our aviation industry and airport infrastructure with flight shame and flight tax, and you succeeded in doing so. Are you satisfied now?

Madam Speaker! The current government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has changed the course for aviation. We have moved from punishing aviation to strengthening it. Perhaps the most important reform is that the aviation tax was abolished on July 1, 2025. It has made Sweden more attractive and improved accessibility throughout the country.

We have also significantly increased the state operating support for regional airports, from just over 100 million kronor to over 500 million kronor per year. This means that the state can now cover up to 75 percent of the deficits.

Support for readiness airfields has simultaneously been strengthened. This is crucial not only for civil aviation but also for total defense, ambulance flights and crisis preparedness.

The government has also given assignments to investigate more emergency airports, allocated over one billion kronor to security checks, or so-called GAS, started a review of the state's role in airport infrastructure and strengthened the work with sustainable aviation fuels, where production now takes place in Sweden.

We also see investments in the future: electric aviation, sustainable fuels and better connections between aviation and rail.

Mr. Speaker, let us be honest. Despite these investments, the situation is still serious. Domestic aviation has not recovered, airports are on their knees, and Sweden has lost more accessibility than any other country in the EU. At the same time, the industry is being pressured by new factors, such as sharply increased fuel prices as a result of the war in the Middle East, geopolitical unrest, a weak krona, and the risk of significantly increased costs with new EU regulations. There is an obvious risk of a negative spiral where decreased demand leads to fewer routes, poorer accessibility, and even weaker economics.

Madam Speaker! Regardless of the election result, Sweden must take a unified grip on the future of aviation. It is about ensuring a competitive and sustainable aviation. Aviation must be used, because without demand, the routes disappear. The costs must be reasonable; Sweden cannot have higher fees than our competing countries.

Sustainability work must be effective. Aviation must transition, but through technology and sustainable fuels, not by restricting travel where it is needed. We must scale up the production of sustainable aviation fuels and new technology. Here lies an opportunity for Sweden to be at the forefront.

We must also secure the supply of competence. Without pilots, flight technicians and air traffic controllers, aviation stops. We must also maintain the infrastructure. Airports are not just commercial facilities; they are part of our transport system, our healthcare and our total defense.

Madam Speaker! A particularly important issue is the state's responsibility for aviation and Sweden's airport infrastructure. Today, a clear holistic approach is lacking, and no actor has full system responsibility for aviation. This needs to change. We must also be careful with new cost-driving decisions. In the current situation, the last thing aviation needs is even more additional burdens.

Madam Speaker! I represent Western Sweden and therefore want to particularly highlight the importance of Göteborg Landvetter Airport. Landvetter is a crucial hub for Western Sweden, a region that accounts for a very large part of Sweden's industrial production, exports, and innovation. When accessibility to and from Landvetter deteriorates, it affects not only travelers but also investments, business establishments, and jobs. Reports show that the loss of international direct flights and diminished accessibility risk hindering growth in the entire region. This is not a regional problem; it is a national problem, in my opinion.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to emphasize once again that aviation is not just a mode of transport. It is a fundamental part of Sweden's infrastructure, competitiveness, and preparedness. When costs are now increasing and uncertainty in the world around us is growing, politics must be responsible.

I have two clear messages for the incoming government after the 2026 election.

Firstly: The aviation tax should never be reintroduced.

Secondly: Travel policies shall be transport-neutral in both public and private operations.

This is crucial to ensure that Sweden also in the future is a country that holds together and that is open to the world.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! On behalf of the Centre Party, I move for the approval of reservation 2.

Sweden is a country characterized by very large distances. We all know that Sweden is elongated; we know what Sweden's map looks like. We also know where the population is, and we know that we are enormously dependent on good transport, regardless of the mode of transport.

Today we are going to debate the development of aviation in Sweden. It is extremely important that all of Sweden is connected, from Kiruna in the north to Malmö in the south, and that there are good communications. The transport routes bind people and companies together and give us all increased opportunities. Aviation is a central part of this, which we can call the bloodstream, the traffic system, or something else that describes that the different modes of transport really hang together.

For the Center Party, it is incredibly important and obvious that aviation across the entire surface of Sweden should both exist and be developed. It is about being able to take a flight to do the job, to reach one's education or, in the worst case, to quickly gain access to specialized care.

Here it is important that we as politicians do not chase aviation but instead chase the emissions. It is not the transports in themselves that are the problem, but it is the fossil emissions. The previous speaker just now said in the debate that we must scale up the production of biofuels and new fuels for aviation, but at the same time, this was not a message to the incoming government. In the oil crisis we see right now, it is incredibly important to take rapid measures but also to put full force into creating opportunities for new fuels for aviation.

Among the first study visits the new transport committee made in 2022 were to smaller companies working with exciting development work regarding aviation, not least when it comes to drones, vertical take-off vehicles and so on. There was a great optimism that the development had only just begun and would then roll on.

It is therefore concerning to receive the signal we got to the Transport Committee last week that the development is not at all going as quickly and as well as was hoped for a few years ago.

It is extremely important that aviation does not suffer damage during the time we transition to sustainable aviation, and we must therefore create the conditions for aviation itself to participate in making the transition.

This is becoming problematic, not least for the regional airports. The fluctuations in the economy are palpable, and they only find out how much support they will receive for one year at a time. They therefore do not have the possibility to build up a sustainable structure and have control over which investments they should make, but instead, they are totally dependent on rather short-term support from the current government for initiatives of various kinds.

The government invests millions when it should be investing billions. That makes an extremely big difference, just as it makes an extremely big difference when the government does not truly invest in development but only does a bit of cosmetic tinkering in the details.

Long-term thinking is needed for the whole of Sweden. Every three years or so, a number of our smaller airports are told that they probably cannot continue to fly from Hagfors, from Torsby, or from Kramfors. Not so many years ago, they had the threat over them, but then it was resolved. The government's budget work takes place in some way in public, and they say: Without increased appropriations regarding the tendered traffic, we will also not have the opportunity to operate all lines.

For the business community and for the people in northern Värmland or in central Sweden, where we know there are many bottlenecks linked to the infrastructure, it is extremely serious that the government cannot provide more long-term conditions for all modes of transport's possibilities for both development and transition.

From the Center Party's side, we believe it is extremely important that we push for a powerful green transition and that we become significantly better at procuring biofuels also for aviation.

Now the minister says that the authorities can procure fuel. The government has tasked 60 authorities to review their travel – how they travel, what it costs and so on. What does it cost to stay overnight if one does not fly? What does it cost to travel by train? The important thing is to be clear and create conditions both for the production of the fuel and for it to then be developed and used.

Centerpartiet wants to see domestic aviation become fossil-free as early as 2030 and that all flights departing from Swedish airports shall be fossil-free by 2040 at the latest. Strong action is needed for those goals to be reached, but they can still be reached.

Madam Speaker! If we are to look forward and lead the development, innovation is the key to the future of travel. We have a fantastic industry in Sweden. I saw that one of the ministers in the government flew a JAS plane the other day, which was surely very cool. We have also seen how aviation has developed when it comes to these parts.

Western Sweden was mentioned earlier, and GKN in Trollhättan is a fantastic industry that in various ways leads the development in both the military and civil sectors. We must be careful with the competence that exists and see that one needs to continue with this.

Centerpartiet wants Sweden to be a pioneer also when it comes to electric aviation. We call for more from this government – not just investigations and strategies, but concrete action programs and investments in the budget process so that this becomes a reality. An investment in skills supply is also needed.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a new leadership. We need more jobs in all of Sweden. We need to take decisive action so that emissions will go down, and here the transition of aviation plays an important role. But we also need welfare, development, and faith in the future in the whole country.

Madam Speaker! My absolute conviction is that such a development occurs best with a strong center party in Sweden, both in the Riksdag and in the government.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ulrika Heie, for a very good speech!

Ulrika Heie mentioned my recommendations to the future government. I do not know whether it will be the left or the right bloc that gains government power. In any case, I raised the two most important things that I have concluded upon in my dialogue with airport managers, with the business community, and with organizations that work with aviation.

The question I want to ask concerns the aviation tax. Member Ulrika Heie mentioned nothing about the aviation tax. If the Center Party joins a new government after the 2026 election – which the member desires, and I wish the Center Party luck with this – what will then happen with the aviation tax? How will the Center Party position itself regarding the demands from, for example, the Green Party, which wants to double the aviation tax from the level that damaged our aviation industry and our airport infrastructure so much?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Farivar for the questions.

I think it was a good accompaniment to the new government. I will not say anything else – transport-neutral travel policies and so on.

The Chairman points out that I did not mention the aviation tax in my speech. No, it is not up for consideration. There is no such proposal from the Center Party, and as far as I can see, there is also no proposal from the government to introduce an aviation tax. I do not see it as an issue for today's debate.

For the Center Party, it is important that all modes of transport are developed in the best possible way and also interact better with one another. The Center Party is for a long-term development of the entire transport sector – for the sake of the transports themselves, for their role in the event of crisis and war, as well as for Sweden's competitiveness. In that regard, it is incredibly important that we facilitate competence supply, simplification of regulations, and so on.

From the Center Party's side, we see no reason to tax the sector that itself needs to transition to a greener society. Therefore, other parts are required for it to happen.

A government that receives the Center Party's support is a government that leans towards the center. I believe the member is well aware of the statements that my party leader has given. There may be several prime ministerial candidates, but first, the Swedish people must vote for a party and give it its confidence to then have government negotiations. These take place after the election.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ulrika Heie for a clear answer.

I hope that you hold your positions if you end up in a government position together with Miljöpartiet. Miljöpartiet already has a proposal to double the aviation tax to a total of 4 billion kronor and perhaps place it on the train or on something else.

But I have a counter-question. What does Member Ulrika Heie see as the two most important conditions for a future government after the 2026 election? The Center Party might be part of that government, maybe not. What are the two most important conditions regarding aviation?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Rashid Farivar!

It was fortunate that the member clarified that it was specifically about aviation when it comes to the co-shipments, but I actually believe that it will essentially be the same co-shipment. Long-term conditions are required here. It is important regarding all modes of transport, but not least for aviation's part.

The Centre Party would like to see an infrastructure preparation that tackles the broad perspectives and the important part of having the capacity to get things done a bit faster. Sometimes it sounds as if a preparation would be some kind of slow-motion work that just goes on and on, but during my years in the Riksdag, I have seen how the Defence Preparation works – how, in broad agreement, one prepares wise and well-thought-out proposals for development and thereby also creates the capacity for action so that it can go fast when the crisis and the war cause problems in some cases.

We can see how the support for Ukraine has been shaped in broad consensus. Thorough preliminary work involves creating a broad knowledge and readiness to act in order to be able to do what is needed in time.

When it comes to the infrastructure in Sweden, not least aviation, we really must chase down the emissions. In that case, it must be important that we get new initiatives on, for example, biofuels. In all areas where aviation can transition, it becomes extremely important that the conditions are provided to do so. In that case, no abrupt changes from mandate period to mandate period are needed; instead, it is important that one invests not just millions but billions in changing for real, and that it happens in a way that truly combats the emissions. The emissions must go down so that more jobs will be created.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a person I think of when we debate aviation. He is called something or other. He is a fitter in Luleå, a salesman in Östersund, or a nurse in Kiruna. He works hard every day, pays his taxes, supports his family, and expects the social contract to hold – that if he does the right thing, society does the right thing for him.

Part of that contract is that society ensures that he can actually get where he needs to go – to a job interview in Stockholm, to a specialist in Gothenburg, or to his brother who lives at the bottom of the country.

In a long, sparsely populated country, one of Europe's geographically most dispersed countries, aviation is not a luxury choice. It is the prerequisite for everyday life to function. That is why this debate is about more than aviation and our airports. It is about whether Sweden shall be a country that works for everyone, not just for those who happen to live in the right places – a Sweden that holds together and functions, a Sweden for all of us who live and work here.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with what we can actually rejoice about. Nearly 31 million passengers traveled via Swedish airports during 2025. Arlanda's international traffic has passed the levels from before the pandemic. Kiruna and Luleå set passenger records in December. Domestic traffic at Arlanda increased by 29 percent during the previous year.

This is, therefore, not a collapsing sector. It is a sector in recovery and growth. That is good, and it is no coincidence. It is the result of a government that has taken responsibility.

But now to the challenges and what this mandate period has actually meant for the aviation infrastructure: When we took office, the state operating support to the country's municipal and regional airports stood at 103 million kronor per year. It had remained at that level for more than a decade. During the time a party let the support stand still and the money stretched less and less, the deficits grew quietly and steadily. Municipalities and regions were forced to bear the cost for what in all other respects is national infrastructure. It was a betrayal of those who live far from the big cities.

This government has, however, acted. In 2024, the support was doubled. In September 2025, a historic announcement was made: From 2026, the support amounts to 528 million kronor per year, a fourfold increase since the 2022 election. The state now covers up to 75 percent of the operating deficits. It is a good use of tax money. It is ensuring that the infrastructure that we have all financed actually exists and functions. It is a fairer Sweden in practice.

Madam Speaker! I want to speak about preparedness, societal crises, and ultimately about war. These are words that have changed in weight and meaning in recent years. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and since Sweden joined Nato, the security situation has changed the conditions for everything we do, also for how we view Sweden's aviation infrastructure – our airports, the security controls, our airspace, and the travelers.

Sweden's regional airports are not a convenience. They are parts of our defense capability – ambulance flights, rescue services, firefighting flights and medical transports, but also, when needed, the total defense's freedom of movement.

This government has increased the number of emergency airports from 10 to 27. In December last year, we tasked Trafikverket with renewing the agreements for 2026. Furthermore, an investigation shall be conducted on whether an additional three airports should be designated.

This is not symbolic politics, but it is responsible politics in a restless time. It is a conscious action that strengthens your security and also my security.

Madam Speaker! Now to a question that I personally am a bit extra passionate about, namely electric aviation. For several years, we have been able to follow the Swedish company Heart Aerospace, based outside Gothenburg, and their ambitions and steps forward. Parts move to other markets, but several actors are now changing the conditions for domestic flights to more electric and more hybrid aircraft.

This is a Sweden at the forefront. On the shorter domestic routes, the regional connections, electric power is well-suited. Electric aviation provides quieter engines, zero local emissions, and lower noise. It addresses precisely the objections that are usually directed towards a city airport, for example Bromma.

Speaking of Bromma, I want to say the following. To shut down Bromma now, just when the breakthrough of electric aviation is within reach, can be equated with tearing down the stage just before the performance begins. The Government has appointed an inquiry into Bromma, which is to be reported in September this year. That is correct. Decisions on infrastructure of this kind should be made on proper grounds.

Madam Speaker! I sometimes hear that aviation is a climate problem and that the solution is to fly less. It is a message that may sound simple, but it does not hold up to scrutiny. From the rhetoric of some party representatives, my impression is that the most important thing is to get aviation off the air, not that aviation should transition. It surprises me.

Domestic aviation emissions are 45–50 percent lower than before the pandemic. Emissions from international aviation are 35–40 percent lower than in 2019. Aviation is included in the EU emissions trading system; it therefore pays for its emissions. From 2026, the free emission allowances will also cease entirely. Sweden has now introduced a law on sustainable aviation fuel, so-called SAF, in line with the EU's ReFuelEU regulation. The requirement is 2 percent SAF today, and the target we are to reach is 70 percent blending by 2050. The EU Commission confirmed in October last year that we are on track to reach the 2030 target of 6 percent.

When emissions from domestic transport increased by 21 percent during 2024, it was exclusively due to road traffic – not aviation. Aviation emissions decreased.

The Moderates want aviation to transition. We believe in technology, in SAF, in electric aviation and hybrid aviation, not in bans, not in flight shame and not in shutting down the infrastructure that holds Sweden together. It is a principled difference.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by speaking about what the red-green leftward turn that the opposition offers ahead of the 2026 election would mean for aviation and for Sweden. It is not an abstract political question, but it is a concrete question about what happens when one lets ideology take precedence over infrastructure.

It was during eight years of Social Democratic rule that the support for the regional airports remained at 103 million kronor, unchanged year after year while the deficits grew and the system was on the verge of collapsing. It was during the same period that the question of a holistic approach to the national airport system was pushed into the future, not because the problem was unknown but simply because it was not prioritized. We are on the right track, but we are not there yet.

Madam Speaker! Aviation is part of the answer to the question of whether Sweden should be a country where it pays to live, work and run businesses, regardless of where in the country one does it. It is part of the social contract we owe the citizens, part of our preparedness and part of our path towards a wealthier and safer Sweden. We continue to build that path, with responsibility, with facts and with respect for the whole country.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Oskar Svärd for his speech.

I can agree with much of what has been said, for example, the support for aviation and the social contract. The reason I requested the floor to reply is Bromma Airport.

We members of the chamber who sit on the Transport Committee know that Bromma has been investigated many times. Every time the conclusion has been the same, namely that the airport is not profitable. We already know the answer.

It is not more investigations that are needed, but what is needed is decisions. The airport is draining Swedavia of several million kronor.

How can the Moderates defend that Swedavia spends 100 million kronor every year on Bromma Airport, when at the same time there are contracted flight routes that risk disappearing – Hagfors, Torsby, Kramfors and Mora?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

When it comes to Bromma, we have for several years had different starting points in what people think about the airport and how it should be developed, or alternatively, decommissioned. It is widely known.

My perception is that we now have a proper investigation in place, and it will be presented this autumn. After that, we can also make decisions on the actual issue. It is pleasing that we now see more lines establishing themselves at Bromma. I believe that Bromma will be an absolutely excellent airport for, for example, electric aviation and hybrid aviation. We need airports like Bromma and many others where electric aviation can have its base.

I do not share the member's view that Bromma is something we are putting a lot of money into without knowing what we are going to do. The investigation will show that. We will continue to debate the issue many times. But I know that if an airport is closed down, it is difficult to start it up again. Therefore, it is important to make careful considerations in that type of decision.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear that Member Oskar Svärd avoids commenting on the procured flight routes that risk disappearing. The Member himself mentioned that if these airports disappear, they will not return; Hagfors, Torsby, Mora and Kramfors.

Then there was the question of Bromma Airport. The appointed investigation is something to hide behind, and it is a sign of paralysis in action. That is how it has been agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement, and it has become a matter of prestige.

Stockholmers and Swedes need the land at Bromma Airport so that several thousand homes can be built. Now, the airport is echoing with emptiness. Yes, there are some established flight routes, but further ahead we will have to see if it is economically viable with these flight routes.

The future of electric aviation is not linked to Bromma Airport. Electric aviation can easily be established in Hagfors, Mora, or Kramfors. The future of electric aviation does not depend on Bromma Airport's existence or non-existence.

I hope that Oskar Svärd wants to comment on the future of the procured flight lines. Many people are worried, and the member pointed out the social contract himself in his speech. I would like the member Oskar Svärd to comment on that question.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I interpreted the applause as that I am entering my exchange of remarks.

I thank Kadir for the questions.

It concerned the question of hiding behind investigations. I do not know how the Social Democrats work with investigations, but for us, it is a given that an investigation is conducted in order to be able to make wise decisions in the future and to have something to base the decisions on.

Regarding Bromma Airport, an investigation that we have launched is on the table, and I look forward to it being presented this autumn.

Madam Speaker! The member says they are enthusiastic about aviation. Let me then go back to what I said in my speech about the operating subsidy being 103 million kronor per year for very many years. It did not change but remained there constantly.

When the Social Democrats and the Green Party were in government, they introduced an aviation tax that struck directly against the competitiveness of Swedish aviation and against the competitiveness of Swedish jobs and companies, which ensure that this country holds together and that Sweden functions. We have changed that policy, because we were not satisfied with it.

We have now quintupled the support for the regional airports. We also have a firm grip on the issues that Kadir Kasirga raises. We ensure that there are neutral travel policies, so that it is possible to transition the aviation sector. And we abolished the aviation tax, to strengthen competitiveness, to strengthen Sweden, and to strengthen Swedish aviation. I am very proud of the aviation policy we have delivered during these years and of the fact that we have cleaned up so much after eight lost years with the Social Democrats.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Oskar Svärd, for the contribution!

It is not often that I come here and debate transport issues, as I sit on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. But I felt compelled to jump in here, because of the use of statistics. It is sometimes said that one can use statistics as a certain despot reads the Bible. It is exactly that we see examples of here, when one compares 2024 with how it looked before the pandemic regarding flying and the emissions from aviation.

Isn't it more interesting to see how the development has looked in recent years? Why compare with pre-pandemic? We know, after all, that much has been restructured after the pandemic; for example, it persists with much less business flying. Many have realized that it is possible to avoid a great deal of flying.

But what has it looked like in recent years? During August 2025, we saw an increase of 5 percent compared to August 2024. This is long after the pandemic and with the current government. We also see that agencies' flights have increased by 18 percent between 2023 and 2024. This government is directly responsible for that. The government can definitely step in and direct how agencies should travel.

We also see that the abolition of the aviation tax last year will probably have led to emissions increasing by 54,000 tonnes during 2025.

Does Member of Parliament Oskar Svärd say that the principle that it is the polluter who should pay, that it is the one who dirties up who should pay for the emissions, applies? And shall it also apply to aviation?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

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

We are far apart when it comes to aviation policy. But I am glad I received this question. There is, in fact, no doubt that aviation must transition or that air traffic also needs to become greener and reduce its emissions.

The reason I used the statistics I did is that the pandemic years were very tough and difficult years for the entire aviation industry and the aviation sector. Therefore, those statistics are relevant.

Madam Speaker! Member of Parliament Jacob Risberg pointed out that we have a direct responsibility linked to our agencies and their flying. That is correct. I share the view that we have that responsibility. And we take that responsibility, among other things by introducing neutral travel policies, so that one can book a flight ticket with green aviation fuel, so that we can contribute to reducing emissions from Swedish aviation.

So, quite a lot is being done in connection with the transition specifically. And as I mentioned in my speech, this is also something that aviation bears itself.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Oskar Svärd, for the answer!

I believe we agree that emissions from aviation should decrease. The question is only how we will get there. My question, if the member believes that the emitter should pay for their emissions, I did not get much of an answer to.

Then we have this issue with neutral travel policies. The question is how neutral they actually are. There should be the possibility to drive a car, cycle, take a bus, or fly. But if one chooses to drive a car, one pays over 20 kronor, in today's situation perhaps 25 kronor, per liter for diesel, but the aviation fuel price still lies below 10 kronor per liter, because we subsidize aviation by the fact that aviation fuel is not taxed. How is that so?

How neutral can travel policies be when a mode of transport is heavily subsidized by being exempt from a lot of taxation while other modes of transport are taxed? The possibility of having an aviation tax exists, in order to compensate for the fact that aviation fuels cannot be taxed. But it was removed. It is argued that it is not needed and that it hinders flying. No, it means that aviation is subsidized and leads to increased flying. You do not even pay the same cost for fuel when you fly as you do, for example, when driving a car.

I still wonder: Does the member believe that the polluter should pay?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

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

When it comes to the aviation tax, I think we should take a step back a bit. Miljöpartiet sat in the government together with Socialdemokraterna and introduced the aviation tax. We removed it for the simple reason that it was incredibly inefficient. It hit Sweden's competitiveness directly. It hit hard-working people who set their alarms and go to work directly. And it hit the companies we have in our long country that are dependent on aviation directly. It did not hit the emissions in the way the member makes it appear – on the contrary.

Madam Speaker! We are simultaneously setting high demands. I was previously involved in the ReFuelEU Regulation, which we have now joined. I was involved in electric aviation, hybrid aviation, and the importance of us having airports all over Sweden. It is a long country that needs all the infrastructure we can have. And we do not pit the transport laws against each other but see that they actually complement each other.

Madam Speaker! I can only state that we have different starting points regarding aviation policy.

We will probably see each other here again in a little while, after Member Jacob Risberg's speech.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating aviation issues. For those following this debate from the gallery or via the web, it may sound technical. But fundamentally, it is about how Sweden is to function.

We in the Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but I want to move for approval specifically for reservation 6 under point 3, regarding Arlanda and Bromma airports. I believe that is where one of the clearest lines of conflict in Swedish aviation policy exists right now.

Madam Speaker! We are not in a normal situation today. The geopolitical situation is now affecting the entire world economy and not least aviation. The war between Iran and USA–Israel is driving up fuel prices. Aviation fuel prices have doubled in a short time, and SAS is forced to cancel around 1,000 flights. This is a cost shock that hits the aviation sector directly but also, in the long run, the travelers.

Madam Speaker! This clearly shows that aviation is vulnerable and strategic and that political responsibility is required. But at the same time as the world changes, we also see a worrying development here at home in Sweden. Trafikanalys shows in its latest report that domestic aviation is still below the levels that applied before the pandemic, that competition is weak – many routes have only one operator – and that accessibility in Sweden and to Sweden is deteriorating.

Madam Speaker! This is crucial, because it means that the aviation is already weakened and that the market cannot manage to maintain availability throughout the country. In that situation, Trafikverket now proposes that over 40 percent of the procured flight lines should be removed. This concerns, among others, Torsby, Hagfors, Mora and Kramfors. These are not just flight lines but also important lifelines for these towns. If the flight lines disappear, the airports are threatened, and if the airports disappear, community aviation, ambulance flights, firefighting and crisis preparedness disappear. This is about their safety and not just about transport.

Here, the government's policy becomes contradictory. It is said that one is investing in aviation, but in practice we see that accessibility is deteriorating and that flight routes risk disappearing. It does not add up.

Madam Speaker! Let us also speak plainly about Bromma Airport. The state loses around 100 million kronor every year. 130 hectares of land in Stockholm are used for a heavily restricted air traffic that is criticized from several sides. It is land that could instead be used to build new housing. At the same time, it is said that there are lacking resources to maintain flight routes throughout the country. This is a prioritization that is difficult to understand, Madam Speaker.

We know that Arlanda is Sweden's most important airport. In a situation where the world around us is becoming increasingly uncertain, Arlanda's role becomes even more important. The investigation Arlanda – an important gateway for Swedish prosperity clearly points to the need to strengthen capacity, improve accessibility, and increase competitiveness. In this situation, politics needs to be clear. It should strengthen Arlanda, secure the flight lines, and prioritize correctly. Instead, we see the opposite.

We Social Democrats have a different line. We believe that the state must take a greater responsibility. Availability must be secured throughout the country. Aviation shall be a part of both growth and the climate transition. For the aviation of the future, it is not about phasing out, but about transitioning to electric aviation, sustainable fuels, and new technology. We do not need to go further than Norway to find good examples when it comes to the state's and society's responsibility. There, the state takes a clearer responsibility, secures the regional flight routes, and views aviation as an important infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! In a time of crisis, politics is put to the test. When aviation is already being weakened, according to Trafikanalys, it is not the time to cut back further. Therefore, my question to the government parties, but also to the Sweden Democrats, is: How is Sweden to hold together if accessibility continues to deteriorate?

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that aviation is not a niche issue. Aviation is part of how Sweden functions. It is about people being able to live and work in the entire country. It is about companies being able to invest and grow. It is about Sweden being open to the rest of the world. When the market cannot manage this, the state must step forward.

(Applause)

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I have some questions for the Social Democrats' representative Kadir Kasirga.

During their time in government, the Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, introduced the aviation tax, which struck directly at aviation's competitiveness. It hit regional airports and rural travelers hardest, for whom the alternatives to flying are often limited. The Moderate-led government has removed the aviation tax.

During the same period with an S-led government, the operating grants to the regional airports remained largely unchanged. In combination with reduced travel and new costs, this meant that many smaller airports had to manage increased economic challenges.

Overall, these factors contributed to a strained situation for regional aviation in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! My questions to Member Kadir Kasirga are: Will the Social Democrats reintroduce the aviation tax? Will the Social Democrats change the operating subsidy to the same level as before if, against all odds, they win the election?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Oskar Svärd for the questions.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democrats clearly did very much for aviation. For example, we introduced state credit guarantees during the pandemic. We provided capital injections to Swedavia and direct support to regional airports. We introduced short-term layoffs and transition support. Had we not made these reforms, Sweden would not have had any aviation system left worth talking about. The claim that the Socialdemokraterna have not prioritized aviation does not hold up.

Today, we Social Democrats stand here with clear proposals to strengthen aviation across the entire country. You are engaged in future speculations, Oskar Svärd. It is the Green Party that must provide the answer when it comes to the aviation tax. We have no such proposal in our budget or in our committee motion. We stand for clear and distinct proposals to strengthen aviation in the whole country and support regional airports, as we have done previously.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! In politics, one needs to have friends. My party, Moderaterna, has such within the framework of the Tidö cooperation. It is a cooperation that achieves very many good things in the aviation issue, as I explained in my speech.

Madam Speaker! Member Kadir Kasirga pointed out that the Social Democrats do not want to introduce the aviation tax again. The problem is that the Social Democrats' friends in the Left Party and the Green Party want to do so. They also want to restrict flights on routes where a train journey takes three to four hours and ban private business aviation. The Green Party does not only want to reintroduce the aviation tax but also wants to double it.

Madam Speaker! My follow-up question to the Social Democrats is therefore: Should I interpret this as that the Social Democrats will never let through the demands of the Green Party and the Left Party?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are running for election as their own party, which is very important to remember.

I also do not think that one should fixate on history. It is very important that one talks about what is here and now and about the future. We have an outstretched hand to all parties except the Sverigedemokraterna if it is needed to form a government.

During the pandemic, we saved aviation with support to airlines, airports, and domestic routes. But today we see how flight routes risk being shut down. Member Oskar Svärd speaks about operating support for regional airports. Apparently, it is not enough.

It is this that is the difference, Madam Speaker: During the previous parliamentary term we took responsibility, but now the Tidö government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is cutting back on the flight routes.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I listened with great interest to the member's speech and think it was positive, forward-looking, and cheerful. The member highlighted aviation as the public transport that aviation is. The member highlighted all the visions we have with aviation, namely that we shall hold Sweden together and that we shall have a functioning aviation operation.

But this does not prevent me from still asking the most essential question: With whom does the member and the member's party wish to carry out this policy? It is a fact that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have a completely different policy.

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term – and it is not so long ago, in itself, that some other history which the parties on the red side are happy to highlight – one celebrated by eating cake because airports were closed down. One raised taxes, and one obstructed support.

I have stood here in the chamber countless times and said that it is not enough. We cannot have a situation where aviation collapses. There are so many in our country, especially in the north, who are completely dependent on a functioning aviation system.

Madam Speaker! I must return to the question that Oskar Svärd asked: With whom do you intend to implement your policy?

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (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! We Social Democrats want to implement our reforms with a Social Democratic budget, of course.

We go to the election as a separate party, like all other parties. But you in the Tidö group perhaps go to the election as a bloc together with the Sverigedemokraterna.

It is no other parties that write our budget, our committee motions, our motions, our "att-satser" and our requests. It is we in the Socialdemokraterna.

We think it is very important to support regional airports. Regional airports have played and will continue to play a major role in holding Sweden together. On that, we agree with Magnus Jacobsson and Kristdemokraterna. I can also say that we agree that we will review the funding system and look at how we can strengthen the state's responsibility for the airports.

My short answer is that the Social Democrats are going to the election as the Social Democrats, with our budget and our reform proposals. I understand that Member Magnus Jacobsson is concerned about how it will go for the other side, given the events of the past week in the Liberals and at their congress.

We have an extended hand to all parties except the Sweden Democrats. We are ready. We are prepared to take responsibility for Sweden, even when it comes to aviation.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The current government has abolished the aviation tax. Support for regional airports has been multiplied. We have increased support for emergency airports. We have commissioned an inquiry into the future organization of aviation. In short: We have done quite a lot to strengthen aviation. We have done that precisely because we have a majority in this chamber.

Even though the Christian Democrats are a small party – I have no other wish than that we should be large enough to ourselves set demands on the Prime Minister and other positions, but the reality is that we are where we are right now, in an uphill climb, but we will continue to climb upwards – it is not enough, and this is actually important, that one stands as an individual party and says: This is what we want. We wish all good to aviation and all evil to someone else.

It is not enough, Madam Speaker. One must be able to form governments. One must have a majority in the chamber for one's policies.

Madam Speaker! Then one must also be able to answer the voters before the election, listen to their wishes and tell them what they get. I agree with much of what was said in the member's speech. We are in complete agreement that we need to review the organization. We are in complete agreement that we are not to reintroduce aviation taxes. We are in complete agreement that we need to take a new approach. But it is not this that the member's majority stands for!

Therefore, I return to my question: How does the Social Democrats intend to drive through their policy if they do not have a majority in the chamber?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, we implemented many good reforms regarding aviation and the aviation sector. We implemented very many good proposals that I mentioned in my previous exchange of remarks with Member Oskar Svärd.

We introduced state credit guarantees to airlines, capital injections to Swedavia, direct support to regional airports, short-term layoffs and transition support. All of this received approval in this chamber.

Politics is about will. Of course, politics is also about negotiating, if one does not have a majority. How it turns out we will see after the election on September 13, 2026. But we Social Democrats are ready and prepared to take responsibility and give Sweden a new direction, because it is needed.

In conclusion, I want to say that this government has certainly done quite a lot when it comes to the economy, operational support and such. That is good. We have supported that. We have not raised any reservations regarding those reforms.

But today we see that Trafikverket comes to the transport committee and says that if they do not receive resources, 40 percent of the procured air traffic can disappear. It is worrying. It must be resolved.

As said: We Social Democrats are running for election as the Social Democrats, and we are ready to govern and lead Sweden in a new direction.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Various business organizations, both in Stockholm and in the countryside, have on several occasions conducted investigations showing how incredibly important aviation is. Aviation is not just about the transport of individuals to a tourist context or anything similar. Aviation is also fundamental when it comes to the economy. It is perhaps extra important in our surrounding area.

This is something that means aviation should have additional prerequisites. I have myself on several occasions highlighted the fact that we procure ordinary public transport and that we should consider aviation as national and international public transport and thus also have the prerequisites and opportunities to procure flights instead of just providing operating support to airports.

What is important with aviation and what makes it unique is that it connects the entire country in a short time. It also ensures that one has good conditions to live in the entire country.

All modes of transport are sensitive, but aviation is sensitive in a special way. I sat in the Transport Committee during the period 1998–2002. Those who have a good memory know that "nine eleven" occurred in 2001. It was a horrific terrorist attack. In the statistics, one can see how aviation worldwide declined, which was partly due to the fact that insurance companies stopped insuring flights. All of us who were active at that time had to work on the fact that one should provide insurance guarantees to the insurance companies, roughly as was done during the banking crisis, when one had to provide guarantees to banks.

Madam Speaker! If one looks at aviation statistics, one can see that the covid pandemic hit even harder. One can look at flight movements in the world. It is a large drop after "nine eleven". But it is an even larger drop during the covid pandemic.

We can look at the Swedish situation regarding the recovery of aviation capacity. We fell behind. Why did we fall behind? This was probably due to the home-grown flight shame. It was politically created. It was ideologically created. The flight shame caused municipalities that owned airports themselves not to use them. The state, which owned companies and agencies, had regulations that meant that the airports they themselves were involved in financing were not used.

Now we have a government that is changing this and is producing neutral traffic plans that ensure one can travel in the best way possible. This is also based on purchasing environmentally friendly fuels to the greatest extent possible.

But the Swedish situation, where we lagged behind, was home-grown. One of the major disadvantages of this was that it affected technological development. In previous speeches, it has been highlighted exactly how skilled we have been in electric aviation and how skilled we are when it comes to GKN. But all this actually presupposes that some form of aviation activity is taking place, because if no one is flying, then no one is going to pay for the technological development either.

It was tragic when it could be seen on Facebook that someone from Miljöpartiet during the previous parliamentary term cut a cake because they were happy that aviation was decreasing. What was said with that cake cutting was actually: We are not interested in aviation, a priori. It was not a question of technological transition. It was not a question of improving fuels. It was not a question of switching to electricity or hydrogen. It was a question of not flying, Madam Speaker.

The previous government's attitude, together with external influence, has damaged Swedish aviation, but now we finally have a government that is taking action on it. The current government has lowered the aviation tax. The state operating support to regional airports has been doubled. Funds for standby airports have been increased. It has been decided that 59 agencies shall review their travel policies. Decisions have been made that the new railway construction in western Sweden shall mean that the railway passes by Landvetter, so that it becomes easier to manage this. Capital injections have been provided when it comes to passing security checks. The government has also introduced its own travel policy, which means that one can now fly.

In addition to all these actual decisions, Madam Speaker, a number of investigations have been commissioned.

Trafikverket is investigating Sälen airport, Norrköping–Kungsängens airport and Säve airport as emergency airports. As a West Swede, I want to take the opportunity to say that Säve airport fulfills a major function. I believe it was a mistake when Luftfartsverket decommissioned it and put a fence in the middle of the runway even though it was fully functional. I believe a review needs to be conducted here, and as mentioned, an investigation is underway.

I must nevertheless say that I am a bit surprised by the Swedish Armed Forces' actions. First, they issued a press release saying that this airfield was important for the Swedish Armed Forces. Then, not even a day had passed before they issued a new press release saying that they did not think it was that important. Such things make it difficult to understand what was meant.

The government has also given Trafikverket a mandate when it comes to the procurement of air traffic. It is therefore about facilitating the procurement of air traffic. I believe that is extremely important if we are to have a well-functioning aviation system over time.

An investigation has been commissioned regarding the remote identification of drones. It is also significant. It is an issue that we will probably have to devote more time to, Madam Speaker. Where should the drones land? How should they function? In which airspace should different types of drones be allowed? I believe that this will be one of the major political issues in the future, because drone traffic is only in its infancy. It concerns ground drones, which will deliver packages and the like, and airborne drones, which may even deliver medical supplies to someone who has been seriously injured or who needs care. It is, therefore, a completely new future that is opening up.

An exciting country to study when it comes to this is Rwanda, which after the terrible civil war has worked a lot with drones in healthcare. This is an exciting area.

Madam Speaker! Previous speakers have touched upon this, namely that an investigation has been commissioned with the mandate to review the state's future role as an owner and manager of airports. Here, there can be somewhat different opinions. I myself worked within the Christian Democrats to develop some thoughts and ideas ahead of the election. I pointed out what we recently received a very good picture of in the Transport Committee. One can look at Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland. They have a different infrastructure. The Swedish map is full of airports and different operators.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that it will be necessary to carry out some form of reorganization. At the same time, one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, because there are individual airports that have managed to have international traffic. In Norway and Finland, it is basically directed only to the largest airports. The question is whether we want it that way in Sweden. But, as was said, an investigation is underway.

What challenges do we have? Well, we actually need to get aviation up. There are those who have a different opinion. But if we are to be able to afford future technological development, aviation must actually go up, Madam Speaker. That is when we can get an economy that allows for technological development.

We must review the organization of the airports. We must take action regarding Arlanda. In that regard, I share what was said in a previous speech from the Socialdemokraterna. I think it was well-marked how important it is that Sweden and the Nordic countries get a strong Arlanda. We must also capture everything else that is easily forgotten regarding aviation – defense, firefighting, medical transports, business aviation, and flight training.

There is another issue that I, Hans Eklind, and a civil servant here, Saga Rypdal Josefsson, have worked a lot on: How do we handle the air traffic control? In the committee last time, there were signals that there is a concern over how the air traffic control is to function. This concerns individual companies. And when it comes to the concern regarding the air traffic control, it concerns around 17–18 airports.

We have worked very hard in Kristdemokraterna. I do not know what all the details look like, but I know that we have raised the issue with the government. I would be very surprised if a positive answer does not come. We will have to see in a week or two what it becomes. I am grateful for the support I have had from both Hans and Saga in this work.

As we now approach landing, Madam Speaker, I will come to aviation's environmental impact. We produce good fuels today – St1 does, among others. We have, as I mentioned, electrification. We have GKN.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the future of aviation, I believe that electricity will be used for short distances. Then it is about what one can call continental. That is, flights within the EU, within Australia, or within America – one probably has to divide it into North America and South America. There, it will be hydrogen. Then we have the long intercontinental transports. I am completely convinced that those will be hybrids or biofuels in some form.

Madam Speaker! I believe it is important that we have a positive attitude towards this and that we see that it is not aviation itself that is a problem. It is the emissions that are the problem, and therefore we shall work with technological development.

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

(Applause)

In this speech, Hans Eklind (KD) and Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating aviation. I will report on the Left Party's view on aviation issues, but I would like to start from another end and speak for a moment about how the government treats the different types of transport.

Government representatives, not least the Minister for Infrastructure, often say that this government does not pit different types of transport against each other. But regardless of what is said, in practice we have a government that prioritizes different types of transport very differently.

Before last year, four transport agreements linked to public transport risked being left completely without funding. The affected regions naturally reacted strongly and described large and serious consequences. When I asked a question in connection with this, the Minister for Infrastructure answered as follows: To what extent the transport will be able to be operated if the state's funding is reduced or omitted is a matter for the regions to take a position on.

The message from the minister was therefore that the state's funding for socially important transport can decrease, but it can also be omitted. It is up to the regions to adapt to this. This year, this was repeated when Norrtåg had its state funding halved through the transport agreements. Even Samverkande Inland was left with almost halved funding. This concerns, as mentioned, public transport.

When it comes to aviation, however, the response is different. The operating subsidies to the regional airports have increased by over 400 percent in three years. At the same time, the minister says that even more may need to be done.

The difference in the handling of two types of transport, both of which contribute to accessibility and development power, is clear. It shows, I think, that what the government says about the different types of transport not being pitted against each other in practice means something else.

Vänsterpartiet stands up for the functional goal and everyone's right to a basic accessibility of good quality. It is a very important principle. Here, all types of transport are important, including aviation. Aviation contributes in several places with accessibility that would otherwise be very limited. For time-critical transports, aviation is often completely decisive, and the socially important aviation should be supported. When the government increased the support to the regional airports by over 400 percent over three years, they did so, however, without any conditions whatsoever linked to the support.

From Vänsterpartiet, we think this is remarkable for several reasons. For example, there is no guarantee that it is the socially important aviation that benefits when the support is designed in this way. For us, it is important to identify and maintain the socially important, most valuable connections so that aviation also remains accessible for those people and regions who are most dependent on aviation. There are also no climate requirements or requirements for emission reductions, despite the fact that Norman's investigation clearly advocates for this.

Aviation emissions must be reduced; we agree on this across party lines, which is positive. But collective research also shows that we need to fly less in order to be able to reduce aviation emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. This is another heavily weighted reason to identify and secure the most valuable connections.

Madam Speaker! Aviation and proximity to an airport are often described as a prerequisite for regional development and growth, but this naturally also applies to other modes of transport. The business community and Swedish industry, for example, have been very clear that the current state of the railway is directly inhibiting growth. We have also all received the description of what discontinued night train traffic means for regional development, for the tourism industry, for the supply of skills, for accessibility, but also for preparedness. Therefore, we need a different starting point in this discussion. Accessibility cannot be determined solely by proximity to an airport but must be determined based on a collective assessment.

Madam Speaker! In the budget debate, several things were claimed regarding the Left Party's budget linked to aviation. I would like to talk a little about that.

The truth is that in our budget for 2026, we chose to reject the latest increase of the support to the regional airports. The previous increases that have been implemented remain, which includes, among other things, the doubling of support that was made last year.

We also maintain, and agree on the need for the increase in compensation for readiness at airports and also increased grants for air traffic service. That we would completely withdraw or significantly reduce the resources to the regional airports is therefore far from true. The resources have increased significantly even in the Left Party's budget. That is what I want to say.

The difference between our priorities and the government's is that we see the need for a cohesive, sustainable transport system. This includes clear offensive investments also in the night trains and public transport. This is completely lacking in the government's budget.

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the floor and move to approve reservation 8.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Malin Östh for the speech!

It is obvious that Sweden's aviation and airport infrastructure will be hit hard if the Social Democrats together with the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Centre Party gain power after the election. Almost everything the member mentions is about reducing or shutting down aviation.

With that said, I have a technical question. In the Traffic Committee's report on aviation issues from last year, Vänsterpartiet proposes in a motion on aviation's climate impact that routes where the corresponding journey by train takes under three hours should be discontinued. This year, it is considered in the same motion – motion 8 on aviation's climate impact – that aviation should be phased out on routes where there is a functioning railway line with sufficient frequency and where the journey can be made in five hours or less.

Yesterday I traveled to Stockholm in five hours. Will you abolish the flight routes where there are train journeys that take five hours next year?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! That is an incorrect quote. We do not say five hours; we say four hours or less in the latest report. The member's statement simply does not hold up.

Regarding the consideration of alternative means of transport, I tried to express in my speech that accessibility needs to be assessed collectively and from a broader perspective. Accessibility cannot only be about proximity to the airport; other modes of transport must also be included. I sincerely do not understand why this is becoming so controversial.

What is transport efficiency about? It is clear even in the government's infrastructure bill. We are to build a transport-efficient society. It is about shifting from less sustainable modes of transport to more sustainable ones. That is the very definition of transport efficiency, which all parties have stood behind. Then we also need to consider alternative means of travel. That is what this writing is based on, and I find it difficult to see why it should be controversial.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not say it incorrectly. Last year, in the same motion, you had three hours as the limit for laying down flights. This year you have four hours. Perhaps it will be five hours next year.

I hope the member understands that the policy the Left Party is pursuing against aviation and for abolishing flight routes between Sweden's cities will ultimately lead to airports being closed. The transport companies SAS and Norwegian were present at the transport committee's meeting last week. They have clearly stated how Swedish aviation is faring.

Now it is a question for the Social Democrats how they are to implement their policy with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet as coalition parties. The member from the Social Democrats wants us to forget everything they have done in eight years and look forward.

I am asking again whether the specified time will be five hours next year. If Vänsterpartiet is in government then together with Socialdemokraterna, we will need to shut down many flight routes in Sweden, not just between Gothenburg and Stockholm.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Trafikverket recommends that alternative modes of transport be considered at a limit of four hours. That is where that wording comes from. The EU aviation regulation recommends three hours. The figures come from there. I do not understand why this is seen as so controversial.

Vänsterpartiet is not proposing that aviation be shut down, period. We want to achieve transport efficiency and attain a transport-efficient society. I also said very clearly that aviation, which is vital for society, shall be protected and supported. I am not quite sure what it is that has not come across to the member, but that is how it is, in any case.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I listened to the speech and perceived three sentences. Vänsterpartiet states that the government is failing when it comes to smaller airports and that there is a concern that they will be closed. In the next breath, the member states that Vänsterpartiet only works for socially useful aviation. Finally, it was a no to the last state increase of the airport support, because there was no connection to social utility.

Madam Speaker! For me, these three premises do not really fit together. If there is no business and private aviation, in practice all airports will have to be shut down, including Arlanda. It is business and private aviation that bears the majority of the cost mass for aviation. One cannot say that one wants to prioritize social utility but at the same time not want to use state funds.

Not having business aviation and private aviation and not providing state funds other than for socially useful aviation is an economic calculation that I do not believe I have seen in any budget – unless it is meant that all of this is to be rolled over to municipalities and regions? If they are to bear the entire cost for aviation when there is no business and private aviation, we are, of course, talking about large supplements and that municipalities and regions should take money from healthcare to invest in aviation. In that case, I think it is significantly better, Madam Speaker, with a government that invests in aviation in the form of state support so that municipalities and regions can continue to invest in healthcare and elderly care. How does the member make their calculation add up?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I would perhaps think it would be more interesting with a debate where one does not misinterpret each other but sincerely discusses these issues with a focus on solutions.

I have declared that Vänsterpartiet thinks that the socially important aviation should be supported, also with a state support.

Member of the Government Magnus Jacobsson is often up in the speaker's chair talking about how politics is about priorities. I agree with that. Politics is about priorities. But when the government unilaterally invests in aviation and at the same time completely abstains from investments in public transport, it becomes skewed, which I tried to express in my speech. That priority does not lead to increased transport efficiency, nor does it lead to us meeting our climate goals or achieving a sustainable transport system. This also needs to be discussed in context. What do the government's priorities look like in that area?

I have a question for the member, who often tends to speak about the importance of market steering and the like. Why should passenger traffic on railways be operated on commercial grounds but not aviation in the same way? When the night train traffic from Gothenburg northward was discontinued, the minister said that passenger traffic on railways should be operated on commercial grounds. SJ discontinued the traffic because it was not possible to operate it on commercial terms. Then the government sat on its hands and watched – but with air traffic, it is something completely different. I do not quite understand these priorities.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I must admit that I was a bit taken aback and quickly tried to Google some figures. We are investing 1,171 billion over 12 years when it comes to roads and railways. An investment of 400–500 million per year times 12 gives approximately 5 billion. That figure is therefore to be weighed against 1,171 billion. It is not even comparable. To then stand in the speaker's chair and say that the government is only investing in aviation is as far from the truth as one can get.

Madam Speaker! I do not mean to misinterpret. I am simply listening to the member's argument that the government made a mistake by not providing extra support to the municipalities. Then the member argued for the public good, which is what the Vänsterpartiet wants to prioritize. They are honest in their argument that for a travel time of 3–4 hours, one should not use flights. One can use other infrastructure, for example, railways, which is the most subsidized of all modes of transport. It is good for the audience to know. At the same time, the Vänsterpartiet says no to the final state support, which in practice means that municipalities and regions should take a greater responsibility.

Madam Speaker! With all due respect – I am really not trying to misinterpret but just listen to what the member is putting forward. That being said, I must still ask the same question that I asked the Social Democrats. What we heard in the latest speech is the exact opposite of what I heard when I listened to the Social Democrats' – from my perspective, very good speech – which in many parts aligns with the ambitions the Tidö government has. How does the Left Party intend to push through its so out-of-touch policy in a cooperation with the Social Democrats?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not really know what to say, Magnus Jacobsson. My speech must speak for itself. I have tried to express the Left Party's position on aviation issues. We are keen to safeguard socially important aviation.

We are, however, not interested in a debate where all aviation is equally important and all airports are equally important, which I perceive we have to a very large extent in Sweden today. We need to find another entry point in the debate and be able to talk about this in a different way, not least from our climate goals and what we have decided here in the Riksdag about achieving a transport-efficient society and a sustainable transport system.

The government's priorities and what Member Magnus Jacobsson raised is how large resources are allocated to the national plan for railways, roads, and so on. We have discussed these priorities previously. What I highlighted was that even when the government emphasizes that it does not pit different modes of transport against each other, it is still possible to see very distinct priorities in how one chooses to allocate resources to different modes of transport.

For example, public transport has absolutely not received any attention in the government's budget or policy during the mandate period. I cannot find any investment in public transport. The transport-neutral travel deduction is gone. Changes in the fringe benefit taxation were never presented. We also know what has happened with public transport. According to the latest public transport barometer, public transport has retreated and lost market shares in 18 of 21 regions.

This is something that the government could choose to focus on. But instead, it is said that we should not pit different modes of transport against each other. I see it more as a way for the government to be able to put transport efficiency on the shelf and not work with the transport sector's 2030 goals. It is remarkable and dull.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating aviation issues. The Liberals and our three coalition parties recognize the importance of aviation for our country and have, during the mandate period, made a long series of improvements for aviation.

Sweden is the EU's third largest country by area and is the country with the longest distances between its ends. Without aviation, it would be more difficult to work and live in the entire country and be able to visit relatives and friends. Furthermore, the companies' high rate of innovation and competitiveness would be hindered if aviation did not exist.

All four modes of transport – aviation, maritime, road, and rail – must function, and they must function together. It is important to link the modes of transport and to be able to reach the airports by rail.

It is therefore positive that Västsverige has found a solution for the new railway Göteborg–Borås with four tracks under Landvetter airport. It will increase Landvetter's capacity and attract new direct lines, which is important for the well-developed industry that exists in Västsverige.

The government has also investigated the connections to Arlanda with the aim of strengthening Arlanda's competitiveness. The government is now working on the issue. And through Ostlänken, Skavsta will also get better connections. The rail traffic to our airports is very important.

Madam Speaker! Aviation is also under pressure. This applies in particular to domestic flights. If we want the whole country to live, we must facilitate the recovery of aviation after the pandemic, after overflights have become fewer due to the war in Ukraine, and after the ongoing recession.

The Liberals and our coalition parties see the advantages of aviation and the difficult current situation. We have therefore taken a long series of measures. We have previously made decisions on just over 1 billion to compensate for a cost from the pandemic, when the airports had to keep the security checks open even though the travelers were virtually absent.

We have increased the support to the regional airports to a total of 528 million. This is to cover up to 75 percent of the airports' deficit, which means a fourfold increase in the support during the mandate period.

We are simultaneously investigating whether the airports Sälen, Norrköping and Säve in Gothenburg should become emergency airports and have increased the compensation for the emergency airports by over 50 percent to 103 million in total.

Furthermore, we have removed the aviation tax. The focus in the climate transition should be on aviation emissions, not on the flight journey as such. A removed aviation tax strengthens domestic flights but also international flights, primarily from Arlanda and Landvetter. Without the aviation tax, it becomes more attractive for airlines to choose Sweden. The aviation tax was abolished on July 1, 2025.

The government has appointed an inquiry to be reported in September this year, that is, before the election. It shall review the current basic supply of airports and the state's role in all of this. The inquiry also includes Bromma's function. 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 and the number of flights at Bromma to decrease dramatically.

We should, however, view domestic aviation over a longer period and not make hasty changes, not least considering the climate transition and what the situation is with our preparedness. It is therefore interesting that new flight connections to Bromma are now also being started. Regions and companies have joined forces, changed their travel policies, and submitted proposals for new flight routes. We welcome the route from Malmö to Bromma, which started in April, as well as the previous routes from Växjö and Trollhättan. These are examples of drivers that demonstrate the importance of aviation for the regions and the companies, something that should be taken into account.

Madam Speaker! Aviation's role in the climate transition is important, and Sweden is leading the way. 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 at the airports. In the aviation industry's roadmap for a fossil-free Sweden, the goal is fossil-free domestic flights by 2030 and fossil-free international flights by 2045.

It is at the same time important that aviation in Sweden has competition-neutral conditions for its climate transition. During the Swedish presidency, the EU's green transition package Fit for 55 and a package specifically targeted at aviation, ReFuelEU Aviation, were decided. The distribution of free emission allowances will cease this year, 2026, and we will receive a common legislation on the reduction obligation of fossil-free fuels in today's aviation fuel. We best solve aviation's emissions at an international level for it to have an effect, and we must use the EU to push and achieve a global impact.

On the subject of competition-neutral conditions for aviation, it is time to review the travel policies that exist in Sweden. They must not hinder or complicate the ability to make efficient trips within Sweden and abroad. The Government has therefore, in regulatory letters, required that 59 agencies report how they ensure travel-mode-neutral business trips and whether they have purchased sustainable fuels during the year. The Government Offices introduced a travel-mode-neutral travel policy as early as 2024.

Madam Speaker! The possibility of purchasing fossil-free fuel for flights is not sufficiently realized today. Travel policies within the public sector and in 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 significantly higher costs. This risks hindering the aviation sector's climate transition. Instead of hotel overnight stays and increased paid travel time for the employee, the money could go towards the purchase of fossil-free fuel.

The biofuel produced in Western Sweden by St1 and Preem can make domestic aviation fossil-free already today, thus long before 2030. It is necessary to strengthen the demand for fossil-free fuel.

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 closest in time. Aircraft powered by hydrogen as well as reduced high-altitude effects are a bit further away.

The Energy Agency's mandate to propose how we can accelerate the transition of maritime and air transport to fossil-free status was presented in January this year and is being prepared in the Government Offices.

Electric aviation has the potential to connect smaller, regional airports around the country and within the Nordic region. The Liberals have long pushed for a developed cooperation in the Nordic region to create a Nordic aviation market for electric flight, where the regulatory frameworks are coordinated. Therefore, it was positive that the Nordic ministers in 2024 signed a declaration on Nordic cooperation regarding electric flight.

Here I want to bring up Heart Aerospace, which started its development in Gothenburg and is developing an electric aircraft for 30 people that can fly 40 miles and which has garnered great international interest with orders for several hundred planes, primarily in the USA. The maiden flight to test the plane will take place this year, 2026. The company is at the same time an important example of Sweden's innovative power and something that perhaps would not have come to be if we did not have aviation at its core. When the company was established in Gothenburg, a very large part of the employees actually came from abroad.

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

Madam Speaker! The Liberals have for a long time here in the Riksdag demanded 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 gave Trafikverket the assignment to investigate the issue, and the Government is now preparing that report.

Madam Speaker! It is not through taxes that we achieve fossil-free aviation, but through technological development and innovations. That is why I and the Liberals, as technology optimists, believe in aviation and believe that we can address aviation's climate impact, in Sweden and globally.

Now Sweden has finally received a liberal, bourgeois government that believes in aviation and which has already taken a long series of measures to strengthen aviation's future and transition. We hope that we will continue to receive the confidence to carry out this important work for many years to come.

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)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! During this debate, several members from the other parties have highlighted aviation's advantage: that one can travel far in a short time. That is true. But if one believes that the criticism of aviation is about it being a poor means of transport in itself, one has completely missed both the climate research, the climate debate, and the changes we are already seeing all around the world.

The problem is that aviation is still, to 98 percent, completely dependent on fossil fuels. We must move away from that dependency, quickly. Emissions from aviation, as well as from Swedish aviation in general, must be drastically reduced. It is not an option; it is a necessity.

At the same time, we need to act both in Sweden and within the EU for something that should actually be obvious: that commercial aviation stops being subsidized and instead pays its own costs, including the full cost of the climate impact.

We know, however, that it will take time to make the longer flights completely fossil-free. Technological development is promising but slow. While we wait for the major breakthroughs, we must stay within the limited remaining emission space if we are to meet the Paris Agreement. Therefore, international aviation also needs to start paying for its emissions, in full.

To reduce aviation's climate impact, two things are required simultaneously: less flying and a transition to renewable fuels, electrofuels, and electric hybrid aircraft, where flights are actually needed. But the supply of these fuels will likely be limited for the foreseeable future, and the technology is far from widely available. This means that we must prioritize. We must reduce air travel, and we must phase out aviation on the routes where excellent alternatives already exist.

There are several flight routes in Sweden that today cannot be justified from an accessibility perspective. This applies primarily to routes where the train takes under three hours. A clear example is Stockholm–Gothenburg, where several departures already today have a travel time of under three hours.

Let me put a figure on the table: A single flight between Stockholm and Gothenburg corresponds to the climate footprint of 50,000 train journeys. It is an absurdity. Therefore, I mean that flight routes on such short distances should be phased out.

Madam Speaker! I also want to raise another issue: the requirement for climate information when selling and marketing flights. Just as we have warnings on tobacco products and clear emission figures for cars, it should appear in a simple and clear way how much carbon dioxide a flight generates, including the high-altitude effect. It is a matter of consumer information but also of honesty.

Madam Speaker! I also want to emphasize the need to ban private jet flights. Over the last five years, private jet flights in Europe have increased by 50 percent. This means that a very small group of travelers accounts for very large emissions – per person, completely unreasonably high. It is not justifiable. France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Austria have already taken initiatives within the EU to review the regulatory framework and tighten climate measures regarding private jets. Sweden should, of course, join that work. Furthermore, there is nothing that says Swedavia must grant its airports for this activity to the extent that it does today.

Madam Speaker! I also want to briefly speak about the obstacle lighting on wind turbines. Today, flashing obstacle lights are required on high objects for safety reasons. But this has created a completely unnecessary reluctance towards wind power. There is technology today for demand-controlled obstacle lighting so that the lights only turn on when an aircraft approaches. In Denmark, this already works in cooperation with both civil and military aviation. In Sweden, development has unfortunately been halted. It is time to change that.

Madam Speaker! So, regarding Bromma Airport. Several investigations have shown that Bromma can be decommissioned without affecting the country's need for air traffic. Arlanda is just as close to Stockholm in terms of travel time and can take over the traffic, provided that the terminals are adapted. This is Swedavia's responsibility.

Furthermore, the pandemic has fundamentally changed the aviation market. Business travel is permanently reduced. Domestic flights, which dominated at Bromma, have decreased by 90 percent, which means that Bromma is kept open primarily for business flights and private jets. The market needs to be consolidated, not fragmented. The traffic should be concentrated at Arlanda.

And let us not forget the city. Stockholm has a great responsibility for housing supply. The Bromma area is the city's largest developable land reserve – centrally located and with enormous potential for housing and infrastructure. It is time to use it.

Madam Speaker! In summary, we stand at a crossroads. Aviation is needed, but not in its current form. We must reduce emissions, redirect subsidies, phase out unnecessary traffic, and prioritize the modes of transport that are truly sustainable. This is not about ideology, but about taking responsibility – for the climate, the travelers, and future generations.

I naturally stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations but choose to move for approval only of reservation 10.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jacob Risberg, for the speech!

It is no news to us that Miljöpartiet wants to shut down flight routes and close airports, and even celebrates the closure of airports with cake. I am proud of the work that we, together with the government, have done to strengthen aviation, because aviation has truly been opposed during eight lost years with red-green governments.

I have a question for Member Jacob Risberg regarding the aviation tax. I understand that the Member does not sit on the Committee on Transport, but his duties are within the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

What plans does the Green Party have for the aviation tax if, after the 2026 election, a majority is achieved together with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Centre Party? What will happen with the aviation tax?

During the exchange I had with the representative of the Center Party, Member of Parliament Ulrika Heije, it emerged that there is no proposal regarding aviation tax today.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rashid Farivar, for the question!

It is an interesting question. We four parties in opposition run for election as four completely different parties. We do not use the chamber to compromise or to arrive at different solutions. We do that after a possible election victory.

There is no reason for me to start reviewing other parties' views on the aviation tax here. I can only speak about the Miljöparti's view on the aviation tax. We naturally believe that it should be reintroduced.

It is not reasonable that aviation is as heavily subsidized as it is today. It is not reasonable that aviation fuel today costs in principle one-third of what the corresponding fuel costs for petrol or diesel cars.

It is not reasonable that the emitters do not pay for their climate emissions. We all agree that it is required that we reduce climate emissions in the world and in Sweden.

It is perhaps not always what one hears from the Sweden Democrats. But they were at least in agreement on it when it came to the previous environmental preparation.

We should also agree that it is the emitter who should pay for their emissions. Or do we want to place that cost on future generations?

Do we want to continue contributing to the acceleration of climate change? Is it our children and our grandchildren who are to bear the cost instead of those who choose to take the plane today instead of, for example, taking the train to Gothenburg?

I do not think it is reasonable. Even those who fly must start paying for their emissions.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jacob Risberg, for the answer!

I want to point out that in the Green Party's autumn budget, it is proposed that one should not only introduce the aviation tax but also double it. I do not know whether the member knows this or not. It is something that the member can comment on.

When it comes to emissions from aviation, Sweden's domestic flights account for 1 percent of Sweden's total emissions according to statistics from Transportstyrelsen.

The opposition claims that aviation does not pay for its emissions. Aviation pays. Passengers do not only pay what their journeys cost. They also pay other costs that other aviation, for example standby flights, burden the system with.

When it comes to subsidization, for example, our trains and our roads are subsidized by a much higher percentage than aviation. Aviation is more independent than our other modes of transport. I do not know where the statistics that the member is presenting come from.

I want a comment on the proposal regarding the doubling of the aviation tax and the subsidizing of aviation. It is not as the member claims.

There was talk about the closure of flight routes. Which flight routes does the member think should be closed first? Is it the one between Gothenburg and Stockholm or the one between Stockholm and Malmö?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions!

I can start with the last question. I think there must obviously be alternatives to aviation.

We have adequate alternatives, even though we still have problems on the route. Many trains today between Gothenburg and Stockholm take around three hours. We should be able to shut down that flight route.

We could have invested in high-speed railways. But the government chooses instead to scrap and cancel those projects. We have the opportunity to build our way into the future in order to enable emission-free ways of traveling. But the government is scrapping those investments. Instead, they choose to subsidize the mode of transport that emits the most per kilometer, which is aviation. Admittedly, it only accounts for a small part of Sweden's total emissions. But it is only domestic aviation. We must also look at aviation as a whole.

Today, aviation does not pay a single krona in tax for its fuels. Where is the reasonableness in that today? I know that we are stuck in conventions that mean we cannot collect that fee when we fly between countries. But someone must start working to change that. It cannot be reasonable that it costs a third as much to fuel an airplane compared to a car, if one were to have the same size of tanks, of course.

I do not quite understand how one is to tackle climate change and climate emissions if one does not start seeing where they come from.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have previously been a school politician. In those contexts, I have sat and talked with young people and also talked with young people who actually have climate anxiety.

I think that what is happening in our chamber right now is deeply upsetting. Things are being described as if it is precisely we who are causing a climate crisis and that it is precisely aviation that it depends on.

Madam Speaker! We can stick to some facts. Sweden accounts for 0.1 percent of the world's total emissions. Sweden is a large country. International aviation accounts for 2.5 percent of the emissions, and Swedish aviation accounts for about 4 percent. It has to do with distances.

If we count the forest, Sweden is a net-zero country today. Then it varies over time. It depends on how the forest has its growth period. We must, of course, take that into account.

Madam Speaker! To describe Sweden as a catastrophe and to speak about how we want our children and grandchildren to be treated is deeply dishonest. Sweden is a pioneering country. We have much lower emissions than everyone else.

We started much earlier. Already during the oil crisis, we switched. No one today would come up with the idea of placing an oil tank at their villa. We have district heating and electricity in different variants. We have gone far ahead.

If we are to tackle emissions, it is not these 4 percent that are the most decisive. It is the transports. There, we as a government are working to achieve more electrification, and we are talking about hydrogen.

Within the EU, we are working so that we have a CO2 tax against the countries that actually emit. I think that what is being said here is outrageous, Madam Speaker.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Magnus Jacobsson!

I am not sure if I perceived any question here, but it was merely a lot of assertions.

I agree that climate anxiety is a huge problem for young people. I have children at home who, of course, feel it. But what is the government doing? It is increasing emissions.

Aviation alone increases its emissions by 54,000 tonnes because the aviation tax is being removed. They blame it on the fact that Sweden is only a small country. Imagine if we had that view also regarding other issues!

First and foremost, we have very large historical emissions. The carbon dioxide that we have contributed very much to does not disappear from the atmosphere in the first instance.

Of course we were very good at transitioning quickly in Sweden, especially when it came to heating and so on. But when it comes to transport, emissions are increasing. Over the last three years, we have seen increased emissions from transport, including aviation. Then one cannot say that we are a pioneer country. We may have been a pioneer country, but we are not anymore. One only has to look at the climate comparisons made in connection with the climate negotiations every year, where Sweden previously was at the top. We were the best country. We always ended up at the top in these rankings. We have plummeted down to place 23, 24, 25 something. We are no longer an example.

One cannot live on old merits. One must continue to work, and if we are to manage to meet the Paris Agreement at all, we must get down to net-zero emissions quite quickly. Then one cannot continue to increase emissions from the transport sector, including aviation.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, that is my point: that the Green Party, with its rhetoric, which they have hammered out for years, makes children and young people in Sweden feel bad and ashamed of their own country and for the development we have made, when we are, after all, among the best in the world.

Then it is correct, Madam Speaker, that other countries "catch up." That is the case with all technological development. Someone goes ahead; someone else develops. When I studied international relations, I had a professor who described it roughly as a bicycle race. The one who is in the lead will sooner or later become tired. Those who are behind gather energy, overtake, and stay ahead for a while, and so it goes. That is also the case with technological development.

One of the best examples of this is the Germans' development of the railway. They waited; they were a bit later than Great Britain, but the difference between the German system and that in Great Britain is that the Germans have a unified railway system. They have a standard that makes the system work throughout all of Germany. So it is with technological development.

What we highlight as a government is that we are technology-positive. Take a company such as GKN! They manufacture flanges for jet engines, which are used in 90 percent of all aircraft in the world. Today, they are developing flanges to be able to work with hydrogen engines. This will therefore affect the entire world climate. But it is not included in the Swedish environmental calculation.

Madam Speaker! I am deeply upset by the rhetoric being presented. Sweden accounts for 0.1 percent of the emissions.

Then I must ask a very concrete question: Did I hear correctly that Miljöpartiet wishes to abolish flights between Gothenburg and Stockholm? I would like to have a clarification on that.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, of course I do not want our youth to be ashamed. Perhaps one should be ashamed of this government, which is increasing emissions. That is where I think one should be ashamed.

The Speaker says that other countries are "catching up." Absolutely, that is the case. It is very good that other countries are catching up to Sweden and that technological development is constantly moving forward. But if technological development moves forward, how is it then that our emissions are increasing? It is not about other countries catching up to us in the climate ranking. It is about us losing. We are increasing our emissions. We are reducing our efforts to reduce emissions.

The Chairman of the Board previously spoke about us being a net-zero country in terms of forest growth. That was a long time ago. It has turned out that we have used figures that the Finns consider completely unreasonable because the same type of forest is counted in a completely different way in Finland. Presumably, we have miscalculated regarding our own forest.

Our emissions have increased during the last three years. If anyone should be ashamed, I think it is the current government.

Regarding the flights between Gothenburg and Stockholm, it is clear that they cannot be shut down just like that in one fell swoop. But it is not reasonable that one should have to fly on distances where the train takes under three hours. We must ensure that the railway between Stockholm and Gothenburg is strengthened so that one can travel from Stockholm city center to Gothenburg city center in three hours. Then we can shut down that line, I think.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a lively debate on aviation.

Aviation is important for growth and development in all parts of the country. Without aviation, it is not possible to run businesses and recruit staff in all places in Sweden. The question is which government would be best for aviation in Sweden and for the future of aviation.

The Moderate-led government has, among other things, increased support for the regional airports, removed the aviation tax, and given instructions to change travel policies so that flights are not automatically ruled out. We have resumed the work of developing Arlanda and have an investigation underway that will look at Bromma's future in light of all the technological developments occurring within aviation.

On the other side, there is a significant discrepancy in politics. The Social Democrats and their supporting parties introduced the aviation tax. When there was a pandemic, airports south of Stockholm received no support.

It is somewhat entertaining to hear Member Kasirga speak so warmly about Arlanda. It is a bit strange considering that when the final report that the Arlanda Council produced during the previous term, which contained a number of proposals to develop Arlanda Airport, was ready and was to be presented, a press conference that had already been planned was cancelled. All of it was cancelled, and the report ended up in the wastebasket.

The Tidö parties are in general agreement regarding aviation's importance for Sweden and the importance of having a policy that provides good conditions for aviation.

Madam Speaker! We are seeing a fantastic technical development. The aviation market will change, and in light of that, it is actually many countries that are looking at how one can construct an airport that has a city-proximate location.

Given the uncertainty regarding where the aviation market is headed and the enormous technological development that is underway, it would be directly irresponsible to shut down Bromma Airport. There is no contradiction between Bromma and Arlanda. They can have completely different functions in a future aviation market in Sweden. We want to develop Arlanda but are also afraid for Bromma because aviation is undergoing a major transformation.

Then I would like to provide a fact-check. Kadir Kasirga suggests that the government would shut down flight routes to several places in Sweden. That is a pure falsehood.

What has happened is that Trafikverket has signaled that for the next period, that is 2027, the money will not be sufficient for all the flight routes that are currently procured. But this concerns next year's budget; that is to say, there is plenty of time to prepare proposals to save these flight lines.

Madam Speaker! One thing is certain: With the Social Democrats and their supporting parties, the conditions for aviation in Sweden will become significantly worse. The question is how on earth the Social Democrats will be able to secure money for the procured flight routes if they are to cooperate with the Green Party and the Left Party. It would be really bad for growth and development and for the conditions for Swedish aviation with a Social Democrat-led government with the supporting parties that one has today.

(Applause)

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Maria Stockhaus mentioned my name and the Social Democrats. But I want to start with Bromma Airport.

Both I and Member Maria Stockhaus come from Stockholm, and we have seen how the development has been at Bromma Airport. During these four years, this government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, has pumped in 100 million kronor every year into an airport that has echoed empty.

Now, some flight routes have been established. We will have to see if they will manage; that is another question. But this is an airport located in the middle of Stockholm that the market has abandoned. The actors in the industry judge the airport. Swedavia, which owns the operation of the airport, has several times said that it is not profitable. Still, we hear the Moderaterna in the chamber defending how wastefully the finances for Bromma airport are managed. It actually surprises me.

We also know that Stockholm suffers from a shortage of housing. It is not Lidingö municipality that builds rental apartments. It is not Danderyd that builds rental apartments. It is the city of Stockholm, especially when the Social Democrats lead the government in the city of Stockholm. That is when rental apartments are built. That is when housing is built.

I would very much like to hear from Maria Stockhaus how one justifies an airport that echoes empty and which until today has almost only been used by business jets and by wealthy men who fly with their pugs to the Alps. How does one justify this?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I think perhaps one should exercise some restraint when it comes to the mocking. I have been out and met with the private jet operators who have air traffic at Arlanda. They describe that large Swedish companies are completely dependent on this activity, so it is about significantly more than rich businessmen flying mops to the Alps.

Bromma Airport is also important from a preparedness point of view. When dealing with important infrastructure, one cannot look at a single year or at one or two years ahead. One must raise one's gaze and look perhaps 50 years ahead. If we shut down Bromma and build housing there, we will never be able to recreate an airport so close to Stockholm city.

We also know that a Swedish company is about to launch electric aviation, and most recently, smaller transport drones were test-flown at Bromma Airport. This development is underway. We know it is coming, and that type of activity cannot be conducted at Arlanda. It is not possible to mix large jet planes with these smaller vehicles, because they will crash to the ground if there is not a very long time between take-offs and landings. It is about large planes and smaller planes.

It is very important that we build housing, but the problem is that we have so many regulations in Sweden that when we build housing, no one can afford to demand the rental apartments. I am the chairman of Sollentunahem. We have renovated and built housing and have difficulty finding people who can afford to rent these. It is not because we do not try to build cheaply, but it is actually because it is difficult to do so with the regulatory frameworks and the costs we have. Housing policy perhaps belongs somewhere else.

As has been said, we must look up. We must dare to say that we can invest in Arlanda and the development there, but given the future that aviation has and the technological development that exists, we cannot afford to dismantle well-functioning infrastructure in such a fantastic location as Bromma has.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Maria Stockhaus for the answers!

First and foremost, Bromma Airport is not a contingency airport – it is not – and when it comes to the socially important services that are at Bromma Airport, the investigations have previously shown that these services could also be resolved at Arlanda. It is therefore an argument that does not really hold up, because there are investigations that have shown something else.

When it comes to Stockholm's challenges with housing, it is an issue that does not only concern the people of Stockholm, but it actually affects all of Sweden. Stockholm is the catalyst for almost the entire Swedish economy when it comes to providing housing for new Swedes and for new arrivals to Stockholm, when they come to Stockholm.

The government has done something very interesting during the mandate period. Today, it is much cheaper to rent 130 hectares of land from the City of Stockholm than to rent a three-room apartment in Stockholm – Swedavia pays only 7,500 kronor to the City of Stockholm!

Madam Speaker! We believe in the future and in electric aviation, sustainable fuels and all that, but the future of electric aviation does not depend on Bromma Airport. It does not. I believe that Member Maria Stockhaus also knows that.

There are many other airports that could easily raise their hands and say: Take us! We are ready. We can take such an investment and such a project.

Bromma Airport has however played out its role. It is time to move on.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! If one believes in technological development, one should see that there are opportunities to fly into the capital. Even if one raises a hand at an airport and says that one wants electric aviation, the whole point of aviation is that one is to get from point A to point B. We therefore need to ensure that there is electric aviation capacity at all Swedish airports. Many will want to fly to Stockholm and get into the city quickly, and then Bromma is absolutely fantastic.

Madam Speaker! I still think it is a bit interesting that Member Kasirga, in other exchanges and also in his speech, went very hard on the fact that the government would abolish flight routes. I am then trying to explain that this is a matter for the 2027 budget.

The Tidö parties all have a very positive attitude towards aviation. We have shown this through a number of decisions and propositions. If extra funds are now needed in the 2027 budget, my question – and now it becomes a rhetorical question: Which government does Kadir Kasirga believe has the best chance of securing an increase in the budget for procured flight distances?

Given the Environment Party's and the Left Party's stance on aviation, I find it very difficult to believe that someone will raise their hand and say that is where the money should be invested. They want to abolish flight routes and increase the aviation tax, and during the pandemic, they showed very clearly that they did not want airports south of Stockholm to survive at all.

How is one supposed to get the millions required to secure the traffic to Hagfors, for example, and to Kramfors and between Umeå and Östersund? For all those who guard the flight distances, it feels very uncertain to vote for the Social Democrats in the election this autumn.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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