Response to interpellation 2024/25:684 on the scrutiny of ministers' and state secretaries' shareholdings
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the transparency of ministers' and secretaries of state's share dealings. M argues that members of the government and secretaries of state already have an obligation to report their financial instruments annually 1. M emphasizes that a review of rules and routines to avoid conflicts of interest is underway 1 2 3 and that one should not judge before an assessment has taken place 2 3. M considers it good that a review is being conducted 4 and that the trust in democracy must be protected 4. V argues that the current regulatory framework is being ignored and demands a total transparency of all holdings 5. V calls for a system similar to the Norwegian one 5 6 and argues that the government should act forcefully 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.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Jessica Wetterling has asked the Prime Minister if he intends to conduct a transparent and total review of ministers' and state secretaries' share transactions, and if not, what measures the Prime Minister otherwise intends to take. She has also asked how the review of ministers' shareholdings, as announced by the Prime Minister, is to proceed in practice. Finally, she has asked in what way the Prime Minister will ensure that the measures taken are sufficient to prevent ministers and state secretaries from continuing to make improper share transactions.
The question has been referred to me.
Ministers shall report their holdings of, among other things, shares according to the Act on the obligation for certain public officials to report holdings of financial instruments. State secretaries also have this obligation. This follows from the aforementioned Act and decisions that the Government Offices have made with the support of the Act.
Notification of holdings of financial instruments is made by ministers and secretaries of state after they have taken office and thereafter annually. An annual notification shall be made even if no change in holdings has occurred. If a change in holdings occurs, for example through acquisition or transfer, it shall be reported no later than seven days after the change was made. Within the Government Offices, there are more detailed guidelines on how notifications shall be made.
For the ministers' and secretaries of state's reports of financial instruments, a list of their holdings and changes to these is compiled. The ministers and secretaries of state have waived the confidentiality that otherwise applies to the information in the list. The list is therefore public, and it is provided to the public for transparency and scrutiny.
Ministers and secretaries of state have also committed to reporting to the Government Offices and having listed, among other things, previous employments and assignments as well as business activities in companies. These reports are also compiled into a list that is public and provided to the general public.
It is, however, important to continuously review the existing rules and routines, among other things to avoid conflicts of interest arising. As the Prime Minister has announced, such work has been initiated in the Government Offices. The review is ongoing, and when it is completed, the result will be reported.
Jessica Wetterling (V)
Mr. Speaker! Just as Minister Wykman has reported, I have posed a number of questions to the Prime Minister because there have been recurring reports regarding the share dealings of ministers and state secretaries. The reporting has attracted a great deal of attention and criticism. Unfortunately, the Minister chooses not to answer any of the questions I have posed.
Mr. Speaker! In a short time, several revelations have been made in the media that raise questions about the government's actions as a whole and how the Prime Minister, as the ultimate responsible party, ensures that the existing regulations and guidelines are followed. I am aware that Minister Wykman has not yet been caught with his fingers in the jam jar, but quite a few other ministers actually have.
Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard purchased shares in a defense company at the same time as the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration negotiated a record order in which the company's IT equipment would be included. When the deal was presented, the shares rose sharply in value. The Foreign Minister participated in the government decisions that enabled the order.
Mats Persson, who was then Minister for Education, bought shares in Ericsson on the same day the government gave 2 billion to a research initiative that the company had requested. He also took the opportunity to trade shares in Axfood when food prices skyrocketed and bank shares at the same time as the Finance Minister criticized the banks, called their large profits provocative and demanded greater competition.
Education Minister Johan Pehrson has not reported his shareholdings as he should. He has also made a decision to phase out Casino Cosmopol, a decision which obviously benefits his own gambling shares.
The day before Sweden concluded a billion-dollar deal regarding Jasplan with Hungary, State Secretary Diana Janse purchased shares in Saab. The share has since risen sharply.
Civil Minister Erik Slottner owns shares in a wind power company but has nevertheless participated in at least two government decisions concerning the offshore wind farm this company wants to build and is therefore dependent on the government's decision. Sometimes he has abstained from participating in decisions concerning the company. The difference in those cases has been that officials have alerted him to the conflict of interest.
Mr. Speaker! The list is unfortunately quite long, and the question I ask myself is what kind of culture prevails within the Government Offices that enables this conduct and causes the regulations to be obviously ignored.
For me, it is clear that a total scrutiny of all ministers' and state secretaries' shareholdings is required. Powerful action is required to answer all the questions that the revelations in the media raise about conflict of interest, insider trading, and corruption, but also about the obvious ignorance that seems to exist among the government's ministers regarding the regulatory framework and its purpose.
The Minister chooses to unravel the rules that already exist and opens for a review. That this is completely insufficient should be obvious to everyone. Does Minister Wykman not see the seriousness of this issue? Whose business is the government's – Sweden's or its own? And why can the Minister not say anything at all about the review that is intended to be made?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for a relevant question. It is important that people and institutions with power are scrutinized in a correct manner and that there is transparency.
I am, however, unsure whether the member really means that the adjudicating body in all different conflicts of interest should be this chamber. There is an ongoing review of reports in the Committee on the Constitution, and that is where this type of review belongs.
I hope that Jessica Wetterling and I agree on a slightly higher level of abstraction regarding the way our democracy and rule of law are organized. It is not the most powerful argument or the best hook from various contexts into a conclusion that is to be decisive, but a thorough examination must, of course, take place. One possibility, as mentioned, is to make a report to the Committee on the Constitution, which has also occurred, and I do not want, Mr. Speaker, to precede the work we can expect the Committee on the Constitution to do in such cases.
That is how we have chosen to organize our democracy. We can have debates here about various factual circumstances, and we have reviews in other places, for example in the Committee on the Constitution. So that is on a more general level.
I still believe that the member and I are in agreement here. I do not perceive anything else in the member's question than that a review is now taking place and that a report has been made to the Committee on the Constitution. It is, of course, up to the Committee on the Constitution how it is handled.
I also perceive that Jessica Wetterling has a legitimate request, that the rules or processes within the Government Offices should be reviewed. One can, of course, be open to posing questions as to whether the legislation should be designed in this way, what it should permit, and so on. That is a question.
Another question is how the routines and processes are followed in the Government Offices, and there the Prime Minister has initiated a piece of work. Just as I answered, it is clear that when the work is finished, we shall present it and return in an orderly process.
Mr. Speaker! I back down a little. My view is that one can always have individual opinions of different kinds, but that is roughly how a well-functioning, robust and enduring democracy must work. One must work forward. One must tackle problems. One must handle situations as they arise, but not in any revolutionary way. One must use the methods, institutions and processes that are intended to be used.
I note two things here. One is that a report has been made to the Committee on the Constitution, and there the matter must, of course, take its course. The other is that, just as the member requests, work is now being carried out on this within the Government Offices. I understand that one cannot agree on all parts, but in substance, I cannot interpret it in any other way than that there is a consensus on roughly how the process should and must look.
Jessica Wetterling (V)
Mr. Speaker! I believe I share the Minister's opinion insofar as we take this seriously. I have not said that I do not welcome the review, but I, my party, and a number of other parties have already now put our foot down. We see that it requires something more than just reviewing the regulatory framework a little bit. Furthermore, the government has not been particularly transparent about how it intends to review the regulatory framework. It is seen that there are reasons to take measures in some way.
I do not know if it is revolutionary or not, but in the government's own handbook for ministers and secretaries of state, there is an entire chapter on ethical issues, on conflict of interest and on trading in securities and how one should act as a minister or, for that matter, as a secretary of state. I wonder if the minister considers the information there to be unclear.
What introduction did Niklas Wykman receive when he became a minister in the government, and the other ministers, obviously? What does the minister think about the fact that so many of his colleagues in the government have, in different ways, received attention for having made stock transactions that, from the outside, appear to be in conflict with the rules? We shall have to see if that is the case.
In one of the cases, the minister himself, Johan Pehrson, has in any case admitted that he missed registering his shareholding according to the rules that exist. There, I believe we are in agreement, even with the minister who is not here today, that a mistake has been made and that the rules that exist have not been followed.
In the handbook, Mr. Speaker, it stands very clearly, according to me at least, that if one is biased, one should not participate in the preparation or the decision of a matter. One is also not allowed to participate in the processing or be present, precisely because through one's assignment or one's employment in the Government Offices, one may have access to information that is not public and which could have a significant impact on, for example, a share price. In the handbook, the budget is taken up as an example, and there the prohibition against insider trading is also emphasized.
It is also stated that it is necessary for those who have insider information in their private economy with a very good margin to keep a distance from what could be perceived as an improper exploitation of the information, and also that incorrect or inappropriate conduct can attract great attention and have negative consequences for the public's trust in the Government Offices.
I wonder what questions are raised for the Minister. How has he himself chosen to act to avoid the confidence in the government being shaken? Does he see, just as I do, that the suspicion alone can cause great damage?
Previously, the Committee on the Constitution has assumed that there is an awareness within the government and the Government Offices of the importance of security distances in matters that may involve private economic interests.
Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about Norway. A few years ago, Norway was shaken by a number of share scandals, which led to a tightening of the regulatory framework. Today, ministers in Norway who own shares can make a choice when they join the government: sell the shares, freeze them, or use an external manager. Is the government and the Council of State, in this case, considering a system similar to the one that exists in Norway?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I share the member's commitment to the rules. It is clear to me, as Minister for Finance and also responsible for the financial market broadly, that it is important that transparency, trust, and these parts function in a good way.
We have these rules in Sweden. Why they have developed to become as they are can, of course, be discussed. Just as the member requests, work is currently ongoing in the Government Offices, initiated by the Prime Minister, where the forms are to be reviewed or it is to be tested whether more needs to be done. Thus, I meet the core issue here, namely that one should not just note that situations arise which prompt discussions and then leave it at that. That would be both sloppy and unfortunate. It is good that this is being looked at now.
However, I am not as inclined as the member to judge before an investigation has taken place. There are quite a few words and descriptions that are close to assuming that certain errors have been committed. In that case, one must look at that. It is good that we have a Committee on the Constitution that looks at this: Is there any intent, why has information been lost, are the rules being followed, and so on? It is good that it is checked in an organized manner. For this, there is a report to the Committee on the Constitution, and it is up to the Committee on the Constitution how it should be handled. The question of right or wrong is not something we should decide in a debate, but we have processes for that.
This discussion is not new, which one might imagine is prompted by the fact that it is difficult at times. I looked a bit at what has been written before, and it is not the first time this has been written about:
January 17, 2022: This is how the ministers save – skipping stocks for funds.
December 21: She is the richest in the government.
November 30, 2021: New Minister for Financial Markets urges son to dump shares – may buy a broad index fund.
July 24: Ministers invest in funds.
July 27: The new Minister for Trade does not want to disclose his shares.
March 8, 2019: Allegations of bias pressure Isabella Lövin. Mejlet was forgotten, it was later stated in the article.
July 25, 2018: How the government's ministers save in shares and funds.
October 23, 2014: The Finance Minister is at the bottom when it comes to savings.
October 18: Kristina Persson richest in the government, and later, in a link to Aftonbladet: The minister invests in weapons and tobacco.
October 14, 2024: Bolund on the Investor shares: I did not buy them myself.
It is not new that there is such a discussion. If anything, it may indicate that the issue of boundary setting deserves a somewhat closer discussion than just such a debate. Therefore, I think, as part of the government, that it is welcome that the Prime Minister has taken such an initiative.
Jessica Wetterling (V)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I can inform the Minister that it is not one JO report but three.
I naturally agree that the KU's review is important, but it is also the interpellation debates here in the chamber. They are part of the oversight power that we Members of Parliament have to manage, and this is also the reason why I have submitted the interpellation. I want to know what, above all, the Prime Minister – even though Minister Wykman is now here in his place – and the government intend to do.
I think it is good that a review is being conducted – that is not the point. However, it seems that we have very different views on what this review will contain. It is obviously nothing that we others – who are not part of the government – have had any insight into at all.
I naturally want to thank the Minister for participating in the interpellation debate. The Minister listed events from previous years. One must nevertheless consider that there has been an enormous amount of reporting on this government's shares and fund holdings during this short period – the past year.
This is obviously a question that arouses interest. All the examples that the Minister points to are such things that could absolutely undermine the public's confidence in the government in power, regardless of party.
I think it is a bit of a shame that the Minister does not seem to see the problem with his colleagues' actions or take a clearer stand. I would have expected that the government had either been able to show that one takes this issue more seriously and acted forcefully, or that one could at least have said something about what this review intends to contain.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that there seems to be a consensus between me and the member on the issue at hand – the one we should reasonably be discussing. It is good that a review is being conducted. I have nothing to do with what reviews the Committee on the Constitution shall perform, but I note that there is a review in the Committee on the Constitution. Accordingly, the measures that might be considered should also be taken.
What possibly distinguishes the member from me is that the member wants me to comment on guilt before these processes are complete. It seems a bit perverse to me, Mr. Speaker, because then one anticipates the type of scrutiny we are actually going to have. I also have no information, which the member wants to make, that it should be established beyond all reasonable doubt that errors have been committed.
Now there are investigations, so we will have to return after those. But it is absolutely the case in general that we must always safeguard trust in democracy. I agree with that. I hope, for example, that we will shake hands after this debate. That is good democratic conduct, to mention such an example. There should not be brawls in our parliaments with physical altercations of various kinds. That is clearly central to this.
I would say that there are always things to do better, so let us do that. Let us behave in a decent way towards one another. We shall test each other's opinions and actions, but we shall, of course, always act together in such a way that on election day it is always democracy that has triumphed, regardless of which party or which constellation wins.
This naturally places a requirement on each of us to not only act to the best of our ability but also in accordance with the rules that exist. I think it is good that one does not act as a judge over this alone, but we have processes for that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.