Response to interpellation 2025/26:535 on Braathens Regional Airlines' corporate restructuring
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Braathens Regional Airlines' corporate restructuring and the government's management of Skatteverket. M argues that the government has an ongoing dialogue with business representatives and authorities, and that Skatteverket operates according to the law 1. M considers it inappropriate for a finance minister to discuss individual agency matters in the Riksdag 2. S considers the government's response to be insufficient and perfunctory 3. S argues that the government has exerted political pressure on Skatteverket, which raises questions about ministerial rule 3 4. S argues that the boundaries between state and private affairs have become blurred 5. S considers that the agency's decision-making process has been short-circuited 6. S argues that the situation raises questions about how the government directs its agencies 7.
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! Niklas Karlsson has asked me whether I have been in contact, orally, in writing, or via officials, with representatives for Wallenbergsfären or for Bra in matters concerning Bra's reconstruction, its financing, or the Swedish Tax Agency's actions. He has also asked whether I have known about or approved any contacts between the State Secretary and the Swedish Tax Agency's management, and whether I intend to take any initiative in light of the information that officials at the Swedish Tax Agency are said to have been instructed to change service notes after the media requested them.
The Government has an ongoing dialogue with business representatives and companies on issues that are important for the Swedish economy. The Government also has an ongoing dialogue with the Swedish Tax Agency, which is one of the country's most important authorities. The dialogue with authorities is not about us wanting to interfere in decisions in individual cases. The Swedish Tax Agency operates according to the laws and rules that exist for the operations.
Since the interpellator reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting, the second deputy speaker granted that Adrian Magnusson (S) instead was allowed to participate in the debate.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! The answer that was just submitted here in the chamber cannot be regarded as anything other than insufficient. What the Minister said gave rise to more questions than it provided answers. The interpellation submitted by my colleague Niklas Karlsson is detailed, but the answer was brief. One may wonder why.
Let me briefly explain the background to this.
Solna District Court confirmed a corporate restructuring for Braathens Regional Airlines in April 2026. 95 percent of the company's debts were written off. The Swedish Tax Agency chose not to appeal the decision.
Bra, as I will continue to call the airline, has been restructured a number of times in recent years. The State has, over five years, written off a total of 770 million kronor in debts to one and the same ownership constellation. The write-off in the latest reconstruction also concerns a debt to Naturvårdsverket of 50 million kronor and a sanction fee of 83 million kronor. Skatteverket was the so-called Aborgenär for the debt, which meant that even Naturvårdsverket's claim was written off.
Madam Speaker! The Swedish Tax Agency's decision not to appeal can be considered somewhat of a surprise given the Swedish Tax Agency's legal position regarding the reconstruction proposal. They expressed themselves as follows: The solution for the group seems rather to be to undergo reconstruction and let others pay the bill for lack of adaptation and lack of financing.
According to information that has circulated in the media, the Swedish Tax Agency's decision was preceded by pressure. Jacob Wallenberg is said to have personally contacted the government to ensure that the Swedish Tax Agency did not appeal the decision. Wallenberg himself has confirmed this. After that conversation, a state secretary is said to have contacted the Swedish Tax Agency and conveyed that the agency should not put obstacles in the way for Bra, and that the company is strategically important for Sweden.
According to the newspaper EFN, the then director-general personally made the decision not to appeal. When documents were requested, officials were instructed to adjust service notes so that the actual circumstances behind the decision could not be discerned. Several officials, however, refused to do this.
Madam Speaker! Chapter 12, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government states that no authority – and neither the Riksdag nor the Government – may decide how an administrative authority shall decide in a matter concerning the exercise of authority towards an individual or concerning the application of law. Against the background of this and the answer we have received here in the chamber today, Madam Speaker, I can state that the Government's actions in this matter raise a number of questions. The brief answer hardly makes the questions fewer – rather, they become more.
It is natural for a government to have conversations with representatives from the business community. Both right-wing governments and Social Democratic governments in this country have historically had them, and I can promise that Social Democratic governments will also have them in the future. But, Madam Speaker, there is a big difference between having conversations and dialogue and interfering in how the Swedish Tax Agency handles an individual case concerning an individual company, especially after pressure from an individual business representative.
That the government has exerted some form of pressure on the Swedish Tax Agency seems anything but impossible given the Swedish Tax Agency's formulations before the agency suddenly decided not to appeal the decision. This is also supported by the lack of documentation regarding the decision, which contradicts what the Swedish Tax Agency stated earlier.
Madam Speaker! The Riksdag's power of oversight is extremely important, and I hope that the Finance Minister's upcoming statements can give us some more clarity on how this issue has been handled by the government.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Madam Speaker! We have recently been able to take note of a considerable amount of alarming reporting on how the boundaries between the office of the Prime Minister and private interests have been blurred, for example by people being offered the opportunity to help with gardening chores in exchange for valuable networks and contacts.
This has naturally caused us in the opposition to react, but the actions have also been condemned by leading experts as highly inappropriate. Law professor Joakim Nergelius sees it as a very unfortunate blurring of the state's and the government's affairs and private affairs. Olle Lundin, professor of administrative law, calls it a messy sludge. Anders Ivarsson Westerberg, professor of public administration, believes that there is a lack of a spinal reflex regarding where the boundaries lie and that one should have a much clearer distance to these boundaries.
Why, Madam Speaker, do I mention this in an interpellation debate about a reconstruction of an airline? What we see here are a number of very worrying trends that have a direct connection to the office of the Prime Minister. This, in turn, raises questions about how the work in the Government Offices is conducted generally.
Regardless of which organization we are talking about, it is the boss who sets the standard and the bar. If the boss starts arriving a little late to work, others can follow suit. If the boss starts pushing the boundaries of what is okay, others can also do that. That is how you get a culture, and then you get an unhealthy culture.
Now, information has emerged, both from the media and through own channels, that things have not gone correctly in connection with the airline Bra's latest reconstruction. This concerns, among other things, the government's management of a central authority and that government representatives have exerted political pressure in an individual case. Furthermore, the issue of certain high-ranking individuals' informal power and the possibility of, so to speak, short-circuiting ordinary decision-making paths is being highlighted.
It is not strange, Madam Speaker, that certain matters – certain reconstructions – attract greater interest. It is simply because they are of greater interest. In this case, one of the country's leading business leaders, Jacob Wallenberg, has confirmed that he contacted the department to, as he himself expresses it, describe the potential implications for domestic aviation if the reconstruction could not be completed or if it were to be delayed.
The question is: What happened after that? Here we need to get deeper answers than what has emerged so far, so we take the questions one more time, Madam Speaker. Has the Minister been aware of or approved any contacts between the State Secretary and the management of the Swedish Tax Agency where the State Secretary pointed out the airline's strategic importance? Has the Minister himself, orally, in writing, or via officials, been in contact with representatives for the Wallenberg sphere or for Bra in matters concerning Bra's reconstruction, its financing, or the Swedish Tax Agency's actions? Here we deserve clearer answers.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I will be very brief, especially considering that Member Niklas Karlsson is not here. I had intended to thank Niklas Karlsson for his leadership of the Committee on Taxation and for the good cooperation.
I would like, for my part, to conclude this interpellation debate by saying, speaking of where the boundaries lie, that it would be highly inappropriate for a Finance Minister to stand in the chamber of the Riksdag and discuss individual agency matters. It is also a matter of a boundary. The answer that I have provided in writing and also read out in the chamber is the answer that applies. That we have contacts with both business representatives and our agencies is, of course, quite obvious. But once again, Madam Speaker: I will not say anything more in this matter, for it would be inappropriate of me.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Now, Niklas Karlsson is not here, but the Riksdag's power of oversight does not depend on Niklas Karlsson, even though he is a very competent Member of Parliament and colleague. I think the Minister for Finance makes it a bit easy for herself when she does not want to answer the interpellation and refers to the fact that Niklas Karlsson is not here.
I suspected a bit that this would come from the Minister for Finance. It is clear that the government always holds dialogues with authorities, representatives of the business community and so on, as the Minister for Finance said. That is how it is, and it is natural. That is what a government should do. A government that does not hold dialogues with authorities, business representatives and representatives of civil society is probably a government that lives in its own vacuum and does not really know what is happening in the country. I hope, therefore, that this is being done.
But that is not what the interpellation is about. No one has opinions on the fact that the Minister for Finance has contact with Jacob Wallenberg, the Director General of the Swedish Tax Agency, or anyone else. What it is about is that there are a number of pieces of information pointing to the fact that the government has exerted political pressure on the Swedish Tax Agency in an individual case following pressure from a very prominent representative of Swedish business, namely Jacob Wallenberg. This raises many questions regarding ministerial rule and how the government views the management of its agencies and the contacts that occur with the business sector in general. It is simply about which interests one represents and what one chooses to act upon.
If I have a neighbor who has problems with their company, should I then hand out the Finance Minister's phone number if I have it? Is that how I should interpret the Minister? Then that person could call the Finance Minister and briefly describe their case, which could end up in the district court. It might be about some restructuring, for example. No, I guess that's not how it's supposed to work.
This shows that one has acted according to the interests and will of a very prominent business representative and exerted political pressure on an authority that appeared to be about to make a different decision regarding the company Bra's reconstruction, given what occurred before this happened. One must remember that the company Bra has undergone a number of reconstructions over the years and not just this one.
Regardless, the questions that I and Member Olsson have asked here today remain. What pressure has the government put on Skatteverket to act in this specific case? The Minister for Finance does not seem willing to answer, but I hope that she can do so. She has more chances today.
The government has raised more new questions than it has provided answers. This concerns both the handling that we have read about in the media and received information about in other channels, as Member Olsson said, and the answer that has been given here in the chamber today. It is about how the government has handled the matter, how the government directs Skatteverket as an authority, and how the government exercises its power towards the authorities in this country.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Elisabeth Svantesson's answers are not answers. They are more descriptions of how things should be. The authority speaks with the department. The department speaks with the business community. I do not think anyone expects anything other than that is exactly how it goes.
We have, however, been able to observe very strong reactions from within the Swedish Tax Agency. A number of employees have testified to how the regular decision-making process has been short-circuited, how standard routines have been departed from, and how external forces have intervened and interfered – perhaps have had to intervene. It is clear that something has happened that has created great upset internally, and it seems to run counter to our proud administrative tradition.
It is of course clear that we, as representatives of the opposition, ask questions based on what has emerged, especially regarding the office of the Prime Minister, as I said in my first contribution. It does not have to be the case that anything criminal has been committed for one to react. I would, in any case, much rather live in a country where the media scrutinizes and where we from the opposition ask questions – and ask new questions – than the opposite.
Madam Speaker! I am completely convinced that these questions would have been asked even if the roles had been reversed. Had a Social Democratic Finance Minister been standing here in the chamber, a Moderate would have been standing and asking the questions. And that is exactly how it should go. It is perfectly in order. These questions are very justified and deserve answers, Madam Speaker.
Above all, I think the first question deserves an answer. The simplest thing would be if the Minister of Finance just said: "No, it has not gone like this." I repeat the question: Has the Minister been aware of or approved any contacts between the State Secretary and the management of the Swedish Tax Agency where the State Secretary pointed out the airline's strategic importance? We request an answer to that.
(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that Minister for Finance Elisabeth Svantesson, M, declines further remarks.)
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I want everyone watching this debate, both now and in retrospect, to note that the Minister for Finance did not answer no to the question that Kalle Olsson just asked, but instead chose not to use his final turn.
The questions remain hanging in the air and are not answered. We will have to see how we proceed to try to get answers to the questions that have been asked today. This also raises a number of questions about how the government governs its agencies. The Minister for Finance is responsible for a number of other agencies that are important for the country, for example the Enforcement Authority and the Swedish Customs. One might wonder what the so-called dialogue, as the Minister for Finance expresses it, with those agencies looks like, if this is how it goes in a case concerning the Swedish Tax Agency and its management. The questions remain, as said, and we will likely have reason to return to them. The Riksdag's power of oversight is extremely important, as I said in my first point.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.