Response to interpellation 2024/25:727 on confidence in ministers and secretaries of state after share transactions
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 trust in ministers and secretaries of state after share transactions. M argues that it has not been clarified that rules have been broken and that the ministers have the Prime Minister's trust 1 2. M emphasizes that Sweden is a rule-of-law state where reports must be examined and that a review of the Government Offices' rules is underway to avoid conflicts of interest 1 3 4 2. S considers that ministers and secretaries of state use their power for their own economic gain, that the Prime Minister's leadership is weak and that rules for conflict of interest have not been followed 5 6. S considers it immoral to make an economic profit from decisions and knowledge and demands swift action 5 7 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.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked the Prime Minister if he has full confidence in the ministers and secretaries of state who, according to Eva Lindh, may have acted in violation of current rules regarding share ownership and disclosure of conflict of interest. She has also asked what measures the Prime Minister intends to take to ensure that rules are followed and to stop improper share transactions.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
Regarding the first question, I would like to begin by emphasizing that it has not been clarified that anyone has acted in violation of any regulations. However, three reports have been submitted to the Committee on the Constitution. The ministers in the government naturally have the Prime Minister's confidence. I assume that the secretaries of state have their ministers' confidence.
Even regarding the second question, it is important to first state that it has not been clarified that any improper share transactions have taken place. Regarding the regulatory framework, in addition to the statutory obligation to report holdings of financial instruments, there are more specific guidelines within the Government Offices on how reports should be made. For the ministers' and state secretaries' reports of financial instruments, a list of their holdings as well as changes to these is compiled. The list is public, and it is provided to the public for transparency and scrutiny.
Within the Government Offices, there are also guidelines and routines for how conflicts of interest and bias shall be observed and reported.
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 good to continuously review the rules and procedures that exist, partly to avoid conflicts of interest arising. A review of the Government Offices' rules and procedures is underway, and when the review is completed, the result will be reported.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Since March this year, a large number of revelations regarding controversial share purchases carried out by both ministers and secretaries of state have shaken the public's trust in the Prime Minister's judgment and Sweden's administrative culture. It is clear that ministers and secretaries of state are using their power for their own economic gain. It is very serious.
The Prime Minister has a superior and strategic role in that he leads the government both politically and administratively. Responsibility, loyalty, and ethics are central to maintaining trust in state institutions in Sweden.
The questions I have asked must therefore be answered by the Prime Minister. Does he have confidence in his ministers and secretaries of state? And does he intend to do anything to ensure that the work in the government functions in accordance with the rules that exist? That is why I requested a debate with the Prime Minister.
Now we stand here. Once again, the Prime Minister is invisible. He is not here. Once again, the question is left to someone else, and the answer from the Prime Minister echoes in silence. It truly indicates a weak leadership.
This happens time and again. As a citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden, I am outraged. The Prime Minister is, in fact, also my Prime Minister, just as for everyone else who lives in Sweden. Even though I obviously have not voted for him, he is my Prime Minister. But I can no longer count all the times that I, as a citizen, have wondered where the Prime Minister is and what answers he has to the questions that he should be answering.
When the Prime Minister took office, he promised to always put the common good before private interests. The reports from recent months regarding private stock deals in the Government Offices create a different picture. The only reaction from the Prime Minister has been that rules must be followed. Now it is obviously questionable whether they are being followed. Now clear statements and swift action are required. And as the leader of his team, that is the government and its secretaries of state, the Prime Minister is responsible for ensuring that the rules are followed.
I wanted to get answers to my questions regarding whether the Prime Minister has full confidence in the ministers and the secretaries-general and what measures he intends to take. Here stands the Minister for Finance and says: The interpellation has been handed over to me. I do not want to be rude to the minister in any way. He stands here and has been tasked with answering my questions, which he actually has done. But the minister is not the Prime Minister. The minister is not responsible for the government and its ministers but must now answer for what his colleagues have done and whether they have followed the rules.
I am still curious – it will be my first supplementary question – as to why it is the Minister for Finance who is answering instead of the Prime Minister. Is it because it concerns shares and has to do with finances, or is there some other reason?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! There were some rather serious accusations that slipped from the member's mouth, or perhaps they were planned to be said.
Personally, I appreciate that we live in a constitutional state and that if things have been done incorrectly, it is not investigated in an interpellation debate. I have great respect for the fact that we have a Committee on the Constitution, and I note that reports have been made to it. Let us see how those go.
One must have great respect for the fact that Sweden is a well-functioning democracy, a rule of law with principles, and a parliamentary democracy that operates according to a certain order and regularity. I appreciate that, and the Swedish people appreciate it. It is good that it is so.
A number of reports have been made to the Committee on the Constitution regarding this. A review will naturally take place there. If there are other irregularities, in general terms, there are other instances that review them.
It is good that it is that way in Sweden. I think that we should collectively safeguard that. We should not have a debate that turns into a court in that manner. We have an ordered process for such things in this country. I stand behind it, and it has served and continues to serve Sweden well. But it naturally requires that we all agree that it is so.
And it is not clarified that any improper share deals have occurred. One must start with the facts and the substance.
The answers to the questions are very clear. The Prime Minister has confidence in his cabinet ministers – as is always the case in a Swedish government – until a man is no longer a cabinet minister. Then he obviously does not have the Prime Minister's confidence. But as long as one is a cabinet minister, one does. That is how it works in Sweden. It is a good system. And secretaries of state must, of course, have their cabinet ministers' confidence. That answers the first question.
The answer to the second question, regarding what measures are being taken, is equally clear. A review is now being conducted on how these rules should be designed. As soon as that review is complete, the result will, of course, be presented.
Here we actually have a very great clarity and transparency towards the Swedish people. There is an order for how different types of suspicions or potential inaccuracies are handled. According to this order, we handle them, for example, in the Riksdag through the Committee on the Constitution. Reports have been made there. They must, of course, be examined there.
I do not believe that one needs a large, vivid imagination or, for that matter, great subject-matter expertise to hear why questions about the stock market, transparency, and other issues that are very important in a well-functioning market economy and a financial system are answered by a Minister for Financial Markets, who is responsible for those types of questions.
Madam Speaker! Thus, Eva Lindh's questions have been fully answered. One concerns the confidence question. That is how it is in Sweden; as long as one is a minister, one has the Prime Minister's confidence. The other question is what the Prime Minister is doing about this. A review of the rules is underway. The answer will be delivered when that review is finished.
Regarding the supplementary question, as to why I am answering these questions, I can say that I am the Minister for Financial Markets and the questions concern the handling of issues that are completely central to the financial markets area, including, among other things, confidence.
With that, I have answered the questions. I am happy to answer further supplementary questions from Eva Lindh if there are any.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I shall respond to what the Minister says, but first I want to step back and talk about what my question is actually about, so that everyone listening will know what has happened.
The former Minister for Employment and Integration, Mats Persson, purchased Ericsson shares on the same day that, in his previous role as Minister for Education, he was involved in deciding on 2.3 billion SEK in state support for a research program where Ericsson was the main party. It is not a one-time occurrence. The minister has failed to report stock transactions he has made eight times.
A state secretary owns shares in nuclear power and mining-related companies. These are sectors directly affected by the policy that his department designs. Another state secretary bought Saab shares the day before the Swedish billion-dollar contract with Hungary regarding the Gripen plane was made public. It was a deal that her department prepared.
A minister owns shares in a wind power company and has been involved in making decisions about it. An education minister has failed to report their shareholding. Another has bought shares when a deal with the defense industry was being negotiated. I can continue. In fact, more have come to light.
According to the current regulatory letter and the instructions for ministers, members of the government may own securities, but they must declare the holdings and refrain from decisions that could benefit them personally. I cannot interpret it in any other way than that it has not been upheld. This is based on openness and honesty regarding following the rules that exist.
After I wrote the interpellation, it has also become even clearer that ministers do not report a conflict of interest when decisions are made that affect their own shareholdings. The rules must be followed. This does not only upset me, but also quite a few others.
I think the Minister is answering very evasively regarding what needs to be done. Therefore, I have some follow-up questions that I would like to ask the Minister.
Many judge that the regulatory framework is nevertheless in place to ensure that both ministers and secretaries of state act in a way that maintains public trust. I therefore have a question. Since the assessment many make is that the regulatory frameworks have not been followed, I wonder: Is it because the regulatory framework is not clear enough, is it because there is too little knowledge of the regulatory framework to be able to follow it, or is it because there is a lack of will to follow the regulatory framework? I want to know which of the three different scenarios the minister believes and assesses is the reason why it has nevertheless happened.
Then I want to go back to what the Minister has answered. I also appreciate democracy, of course. I think it is foolish to insinuate anything else. But the fact that a report has been made to KU does not mean a prohibition against discussing or debating an issue.
We shall have an orderly process, absolutely, but there must also be a respect for something else that is important in democracy, namely the members of parliament's opportunities and right to ask questions through interpellations in the Swedish Riksdag and to receive answers to them.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! It is excellent to have an open debate and discussion, but the fact that one debates and has perceptions and opinions does not make one an investigating or judging power in any way. We have functions for that. We have, for example, the Committee on the Constitution which reviews that type of matter. It seems strange to completely anticipate such a review.
It has not yet been established that any irregularities have occurred, but the reviews and reports that are made shall, of course, be met with the utmost respect. That is also the case. It is good that we have that order in Sweden. It shall take place in a good way, and it is good that we have an order with openness and transparency.
What the member is requesting is that I should make myself a judging party in this. We have reports to the Committee on the Constitution, which scrutinizes the government. I think it is good that we have it in that way in Sweden. It is a strong part of our democracy that it functions that way.
If the rules need to be changed or clarified, I think, once again, that it is good that we have stable and orderly processes in Sweden and that the Government Offices are now reviewing the guidelines. It is good that one does not preempt this for other reasons but simply protects the institutions that we have built up so that democracy can function well. They need to function and be protected also when one might want to score political points or rush things through.
We had an interpellation debate earlier here. It was the same thing there. Investigation and review were needed to improve the regulatory framework. It is sometimes frustrating that it is so, but fundamentally, it builds a much better Sweden to have institutions and functions that examine how things are and investigate how things should be. Then governments can present proposals and parliaments can make decisions, and democracy can function in an orderly and good way where accountability can be demanded and decisions are made that hopefully lead to Sweden and the Swedish people having better living conditions tomorrow than they have today.
I have no other opinion, Madam Speaker. I do not actually believe that Eva Lindh and I have different opinions on this, but rather I believe we have a great consensus. Then, of course, it is completely natural that the opposition wants to draw attention, take someone's backing, or demand accountability for various things. That is how it should be, and it should happen in a free debate. That debate can be held in parallel with taking responsibility for and safeguarding the institutions and the functionality that we must have for democracy to function well.
That is why I advocate for reports to the Committee on the Constitution. The review should, of course, take place there, but the routines at the Government Offices must also be reviewed. Once that has been done, we will, of course, have to return and report on what has been concluded and whether reinforcements are needed there. I am, of course, not anticipating any of those processes.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! From the Minister's answer here, one could think that it is a bit doubtful whether the rules have been followed or not. When it comes to conflict of interest, they actually have not followed them, because they have not declared conflict of interest at those times when they have made decisions concerning something that can provide financial gain, period. There, the regulatory framework needs to be followed.
When it comes to share purchases, I have not asked the Minister to be a judge in this or to judge any of his colleagues. I can only state that what is happening seems unreasonable. The Government could simply decide to ban direct share trading for Ministers and State Secretaries. That is a proposal. It does not need to be investigated; if one, like me, thinks it is unreasonable, one can make that decision.
Again: I and many with me think that this is upsetting. It is not about political points for me, but I am sincerely interested in whether the Prime Minister thinks this is problematic or not. He does not stand here and answer the questions that I have asked. The Government says that the ministers have confidence as long as they remain in office. I still think it is interesting to get an answer, but the Prime Minister is keeping away. It is silent. I think it is deeply problematic.
It is obvious that the rules that exist have not been followed. It is immoral to make a personal financial gain from the decisions and the knowledge that government representatives have to a much greater extent and before everyone else. Do something! That is my appeal and my wish.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! That Member Eva Lindh does not appreciate discussing issues concerning confidence in the financial market with the Minister for Finance, I will not be able to resolve for the Member. On the other hand, I have answered the Member's questions. It does, of course, concern the question of confidence. It is clear that those who sit in Sweden's government always have the Prime Minister's confidence. Otherwise, one does not sit in the government. That is the order we have in Sweden.
I have answered the question of what we are doing about this. A review is underway. I interpret the member's statement as her wanting action to be taken before the review is complete. I generally think it is wise to conduct a review, an analysis, and an assessment, and then proceed to a decision. There are almost always different consequences or side effects in different types of regulatory changes. It is good that a review is being conducted.
Then I do not know, Madam Speaker, if Eva Lindh has acted and reacted as powerfully before. What perhaps should be mentioned before a review is conducted or in connection with this is that the questions are not new. In Dagens Nyheter on February 25, 2019, the following was stated about the Social Democratic government: ”Så placerar regeringen sina pengar – Hans Dahlgren har mest kapital”. In Dagens Nyheter on March 21, 2021, it was stated about the Social Democratic government: ”Politikerna kände inte till placeringarna – ser över innehaven”. On January 10, 2022, it stated: ”S-ministrarnas fondklipp – hon har överlägset störst portfölj”. On July 23, 2020, it stated: ”MP-ministrar placerar i kol- och oljefonder”. In Expressen on September 27, 2019, it stated: ”Nya ministern vägrar lämna ut lista över sitt aktieinnehav”. This concerned Anna Hallberg. On October 14, 2014, it stated: ”Bolund om Investor-aktierna: Jag köpte dem inte själv.”
The issue is therefore not new. A review is underway, and when it is complete, we will of course report on it.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.