Response to interpellation 2023/24:73 on the management of Vattenfall AB
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the governance of Vattenfall AB and whether it follows common principles for state ownership. M argues that the company is governed according to common principles and rules where the board and the management are responsible for the organization and operations 1 2. M emphasizes that the government governs professionally and that Vattenfall plays an important role in future nuclear power 2 3. S argues that it is problematic that a steering group includes parties that want to regulate the company's communication in detail and limit its opportunities to speak positively about wind power 4. S questions whether political directives regarding specific reactors and financing affect the company's financial position 5. S suggests that M should scrap the steering group to create clarity 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Fredrik Olovsson has asked me how I ensure that the management of Vattenfall is compatible with the ownership policy and corporate governance model.
Companies with state ownership are subject to the same laws as privately owned companies, for example, the Companies Act. In the Companies Act, there is a division of responsibility between owners, the board, and the management. It is the company's board and management that are responsible for the company's organization and the administration of its affairs, as well as the ongoing management of the company's operational activities.
In the Tidö Agreement, there is an agreement that Vattenfall AB shall be governed according to established principles for the state's ownership management. This means, among other things, that the general meeting is the company's highest decision-making body where the shareholder formally exercises its influence. The Minister for Finance has the government's authorization to represent the state as a shareholder at general meetings in Vattenfall AB. That Vattenfall AB shall be governed according to established principles for the state's ownership management is safeguarded in the routines and the order that apply for the management of companies in the Government Offices.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer!
Vattenfall is a company of great importance for the transition of Sweden. As a grid owner and as a large electricity producer, the company has a completely central role in the electrification of industrial processes and of transport in Sweden, but also actually in many other European countries. Vattenfall also represents very large economic values for the state and thus, in the long run, also for the Swedish citizens.
I point out in the interpellation that the starting point for the government's corporate governance should be precisely the ownership policy and the Swedish corporate governance model. This means, as the Minister for Finance underlined here, that companies owned by the state are actually governed in the same way as privately owned companies, with the general meeting as the highest decision-making body. It also means that the board's responsibility is very important for the organization and the management of the company's affairs and that it becomes the board's responsibility to establish goals and strategies for the company's operations, while the company's management is responsible for the operational management.
The answer from the Minister for Finance is fundamentally very reassuring. In principle, we seem to be in complete agreement on how the ownership management should look. The problem is only that the minister does not quite explain what I also raise in the interpellation, namely that a steering group has been created for the company which consists not only of cabinet ministers, but also of representatives from a party outside the government – the Sweden Democrats. Nothing is said in the answer about how this affects the management of the company.
The Sweden Democrats, through their spokesperson in the Riksdag, have been very clear in these issues that they do not see state corporate governance in the way the Finance Minister presented – on the contrary, in fact. The party wants to actively put a muzzle on the company, and they want to regulate in detail how the company should communicate. Above all, it is about Vattenfall not being allowed to speak about wind power in positive terms. Party leader Jimmie Åkesson also has views on who should be the CEO of the company – or more importantly, who should not be the CEO.
The question is how this aligns with Elisabeth Svantesson's view on the management of Vattenfall. I assume that these views have not only been expressed in the media but are also being driven within the group that the Sverigedemokraterna now belong to. This raises some questions that I intend to ask.
Have the views that the Sweden Democrats have actively and publicly championed also been put forward in the government's ownership dialogue with Vattenfall? Has the CEO question in any way been discussed with the board or been an issue for incoming members in the selection work that the Government Offices have conducted ahead of the meeting? Has the government put forward any requirements on how the company should communicate regarding different types of power, as the chairman of the Committee on Industry has demanded?
These are questions that I mean need to be answered by the Minister for Finance, who - council of state group or not - just as she just said, has the ultimate responsibility for the corporate governance in the government.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the interpellation! I could answer briefly. I shall answer something longer. The question was about how I ensure that the company is managed according to established principles. Well, by managing it according to established principles and rules. The Government does so. As Minister for Ownership, I am responsible for the state's companies, and we simply manage them according to established principles.
Fredrik Olovsson knows very well that one can also have a discussion between government parties and other parties about how one wants to see, for example, nuclear power in Sweden in different ways. That Vattenfall shall play a role in this is no secret. We are talking about this here and now, and we are talking about it in other ways. But still, it is the case that the management of Vattenfall is handled by me as the owner minister.
Of course I can discuss with other parties and also with Fredrik Olovsson – I am happy to have a coffee at the Ministry of Finance and discuss Vattenfall's mandate moving forward, if he has any good input on this. But it is still I as the owner minister who is responsible for the management, and we manage entirely according to established principles. When it comes to the owner, that is to say the state, the taxpayers, or the Riksdag, it is also the case that there is a majority in the Swedish Riksdag for nuclear power. That is fundamentally good. I believe that very many voters, even those who voted for Fredrik Olovsson's party, think that is good.
We want to see more nuclear power in Sweden in various ways, and Vattenfall can and absolutely will play a role in this. They have already begun that journey very clearly since the change of power in Sweden a year ago. It is both I and certainly a good portion of Fredrik Olovsson's own voters who are, as it were, quite happy about it.
The question was, all in all, who is in charge. It is we who are in charge according to common principles with owner dialogues. Fredrik Olovsson knows exactly how this works. Of course, we in the government discuss between our parties how this company and other companies function and if things can work better. But it was the Ministry of Finance that, for example, ensured the replacement of two board members in Vattenfall's board, and it was done according to completely ordinary common principles.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! It sounds once again as if the Minister for Finance and I are in agreement on how Vattenfall should be governed. In that case, it is very reassuring that the proposals put forward by the Sweden Democrats on the issues I raised do not have any significance for the management of the company. Instead, they can well be added to SD's usual account for intimidating CEOs or heads of agencies in order, in the broadest sense, to find an outlet for the type of politics or direction that they want to see.
Both when it concerns heads of agencies and CEOs of companies, I believe it is important that the owner, the government, stands up for them in such a situation.
But of course, it is not only the Sweden Democrats who put forward different views on how issues should be handled, which perhaps above all is the board's and the management's work. When it comes to the investments in nuclear power, as the Finance Minister said, Vattenfall initiated a preliminary study on the possibility of building new nuclear power. They even did this before the election, in the summer of 2022.
On the other hand, the minister in the government has not been satisfied with that process at all. There, they have quite detailed views on how they think this should be taken forward. The Prime Minister even seems to have decided in which country the reactors should be purchased. I have understood that at the Élysée Palace, it has been mentioned that French reactors could be of interest. This has even resulted in Vattenfall receiving reminders that it is indeed time to sign agreements now.
The Minister for Energy opened up for stricter control just the other day. The question then is what stricter control actually entails. And the Minister for Employment, who also is not part of this cabinet group, has for example stated that it should be precisely large reactors. How much power he has not said, but they should be large at least. These are questions that are normally handled by a company anyway.
On the other hand, the Minister for Employment has highlighted the issue of a social mandate for the company. It is, after all, something that can be part of the government's management of a state-owned company. In that case, the question is rather whether any such work is ongoing at the Ministry of Finance or if that issue is being discussed in the cabinet. I wonder, of course, if it would be possible to give some indications of what such a mandate could look like and how it would be financed.
The last thing, the financing, is important not least in a situation where it involves investments of many tens or perhaps hundreds of billions of kronor. At the same time, it is a company that is dependent on financing on the capital market and thus has much to gain from being run commercially, but also much to lose by ending up in a situation where one is forced to follow political directives that risk the company's economic position and thus also fundamentally affect the lenders' view of Vattenfall.
I believe it is important that the Minister for Finance is extremely clear and precise in his message on these issues.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the questions and the discussion.
We can start with nuclear power as such. It is important for our four parties that we get processes started, which we are doing, to get new nuclear power in Sweden. This will be required to electrify so that we can reduce emissions. This is a part of the fundamental energy policy that we went to the election on: to now also invest in nuclear power on a larger scale, together with wind, water, and solar.
In this work, Vattenfall is a company that already today operates nuclear power plants and is now planning for more. The nuclear power issue, however, is about much more than Vattenfall, and I think it is important to emphasize this. It is about creating the conditions for nuclear power in Sweden, of course also for other actors, and it is about changing permit processes, changing the law so that one can build in more places and so on. All of this is incredibly important to get nuclear power in place. It is also economic models, just as Fredrik Olovsson highlighted.
When it comes to what is happening in the Government Offices, Fredrik Olovsson knows that I will not tell him about everything that is going on there. It is, however, no secret that we are now working on a roadmap for nuclear power, or a nuclear power program, if one wants to call it that, where we in our parties together take up the parts that Fredrik Olovsson has highlighted in a very pleasant and good way, that is to say that one must think through the whole, everything from how the financing models should look to the legal hurdles that must be removed for nuclear power to be established.
As Fredrik Olovsson began, Vattenfall is a large and successful company with great assets. It is one of the largest energy companies in the entire EU, and it is of course enormously important for me and the government as the owning minister that we manage the company in a professional manner.
I do not know if this interpellation debate has been sparked by any thought that I am not performing that task as it should be, but I want to emphasize that this company, together with many other companies, is important to me and that we are, of course, professional in our governance and our relationship with the company. From my perspective, I do this as well as I possibly can, even if one should not grade oneself. I can also say that I am very careful to govern according to established principles.
That there are parties in the Riksdag and the government, but also in the government base, that have a great commitment to these issues is fundamentally good. Imagine if we had had this debate about what type of nuclear reactors would be needed in Sweden and so on ten years ago. It would have been very good. Then we might have found it easier both to reduce emissions and to have more functioning energy systems.
With this said: The commitment is great, and the company is managed according to established principles.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! The interpellation has been raised because it is an important company, it is important that it is managed professionally, and there are question marks at least regarding how parties in the government base handle the issue and what impact this has on the company. That is why the question has been posed. Now the Minister for Finance says that it does not have such great significance what has been said publicly, and in that case, I think that is very good.
Uncertainty regarding financing issues concerning Vattenfall, I believe, is furthermore not a small matter. If there is uncertainty or lack of clarity there over a long period, this in itself is bad for the company, and therefore it is important that the Minister for Finance is clear and direct in his communication regarding these issues.
Since it is of great importance to manage Vattenfall and the management of the company well, we will, of course, return to this many times ahead. We will follow how the company is managed, just as with all the other companies.
I personally believe that the Minister for Finance would have much to gain from scrapping that backpack she has been given in the company's steering group. It doesn't really help, but rather makes things more unclear and uncertain. We will surely have reason to return to this further ahead, perhaps over that cup of coffee at the Ministry of Finance.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for your good advice and support. I take the communication tip to be straightforward and clear with myself. I try to be that in all political communication, but it can certainly be improved. We will absolutely have to come back to that cup of coffee.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.