Response to interpellation 2025/26:150 on the Prime Minister's responsibility for the government's actions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S argues that confidence in the government is seriously damaged by share transactions and that there is a pattern of rule violations 1. S considers that the Prime Minister is responsible for the government's administrative culture and that his reluctance to take responsibility signals weak leadership 1. S argues that ministers have not reported conflicts of interest regarding decisions affecting their own shareholdings 2. S considers that the Prime Minister does not answer questions about responsibility 3. 4 M argues that ministers and secretaries of state should follow the law to strengthen confidence 4. M claims that the Prime Minister has confidence in his ministers 5 6. M argues that questions about transparency should rise above partisan maneuvering 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.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked the Prime Minister why the Prime Minister does not choose to personally take the debate on issues concerning his own responsibility for the government's actions, how the Prime Minister views the risk that the share dealings of ministers and secretaries of state damage the confidence in the government, and whether the Prime Minister intends to take further measures to ensure that current rules for share ownership and conflict of interest are followed.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
I am responding to the interpellation because I am responsible for financial market regulation, which includes the Act (2018:1625) on the obligation for certain public officials to report holdings of financial instruments. I also responded to an interpellation with similar questions at the end of August.
The ministers and secretaries of state shall, according to the law I have just mentioned and decisions made with the support of the law, report their financial instruments and otherwise comply with the law. This is intended to strengthen the public's confidence in them. It should be pointed out that no improprieties have been clarified regarding the ministers' or secretaries of state's share transactions.
In addition to the Act and Regulation (2018:2014) on the obligation for certain public officials to report holdings of financial instruments, there are more detailed guidelines within the Government Offices on how the reports shall 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 provided to the general public for transparency and scrutiny.
Within the Government Offices, there are also guidelines and routines for how conflicts of interest and bias shall be handled and reported.
Ministers and Secretaries of State have also committed to reporting to the Government Offices and having recorded, among other things, previous employments and assignments as well as business activities in companies. These reports are also compiled into a register that is public and provided to the general public.
It is important to continuously review the rules and procedures that exist, partly to avoid the occurrence of conflicts of interest. The Head of Legal Affairs' office in the Government Offices was tasked this spring with conducting a review of the memorandum on the holding of financial instruments (SB PM 2019:3).
The revised memorandum, which was decided on 8 December 2025, contains a new chapter on the risks of bias and other conflicts of interest in the possession of financial instruments.
The review does not mean that the possibility for members of the government to hold financial instruments has changed. That members of the government can own financial instruments and are required to report their holdings has applied for a long time. The purpose of the revision is primarily to emphasize the risks of bias and other conflicts of interest and to provide clearer and better support in the considerations that must be made on an ongoing basis when holding financial instruments.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I will return to that.
Confidence in the Swedish government has been seriously damaged by what has been revealed. During the past year, we have seen a series of revelations regarding the stock transactions of ministers and secretaries of state, which in a deeply disturbing way undermine trust in the government and in the administrative culture that has long characterized Sweden, a culture built on openness, impartiality, and responsibility.
The government makes decisions that affect markets, companies, and the finances of individuals. Therefore, there are clear rules to prevent bias and conflicts of interest, requirements for disclosure of shareholdings, requirements to report bias, and requirements to refrain from decisions that could benefit one's own economic interests. These are not formalities but fundamentals of democracy.
Despite this, we have now seen a pattern of rule violations and lack of judgment at the highest level. It is not about isolated mistakes. It is about repeated cases where ministers and secretaries of state have purchased shares in companies that are directly or indirectly affected by their own decisions, sometimes on the same day the decisions are made and sometimes without the holdings even being reported.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson promised upon his inauguration to always put the common good before private interests. The revelations that have emerged unfortunately show the opposite. Even more serious is the Prime Minister's reluctance to take responsibility himself in the debate.
When I have previously submitted interpellations on this issue, the Prime Minister has chosen not to answer. Instead, Niklas Wykman has answered and been sent forward. But the question is not about technicalities in a regulatory framework. It is about the Prime Minister's leadership and his responsibility for the government and for the culture that characterizes the Government Offices.
It is the Prime Minister who appoints his ministers. It is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for their judgment. It is the Prime Minister who must be held accountable when confidence in the government is damaged. That was why I requested this debate with the Prime Minister. Therefore, it is deeply problematic that he is once again not here. The silence is not neutral. It signals weak leadership at a time when Sweden needs the opposite.
I do not direct any personal criticism towards the minister who now stands here in the chamber. But let us be clear: the minister is not the Prime Minister. The minister does not bear the ultimate responsibility for the government and its administrative culture. Nevertheless, it is the Minister for Financial Markets Wykman who is expected to answer questions about the Prime Minister's confidence in his ministers and secretaries of state. It is actually remarkable.
I would still like to thank for part of what Finance Minister Wykman said here in his response, namely that they have now reviewed what I have asked about. I still hope that this will set things right, that it will become clearer and that no inaccuracies shall occur in the future.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! I am listening to Eva Lindh. When it comes to the issue at hand, we seem to be in agreement. There must be clear rules that apply, and those rules must be followed. Sweden shall be characterized by openness, transparency, and oversight.
What we perhaps have slightly different measures of is self-criticism or reflection. It is perhaps not very nice of Eva Lindh to pretend as if it is the first time this is being discussed, since Eva Lindh has been deeply involved in this issue.
It might perhaps be liberating for everyone listening to the debate, after an autumn of many scandals in the Social Democrats, to hear which cases in previous governments Eva Lindh has acted on or reacted to when there has been public discussion about this.
Is there any case from previous governments that Eva Lindh would like to point out where a discussion has been held on this? It would obviously strengthen Eva Lindh's credibility very much if there were also such examples to point to.
Eva Lindh also says that it is a pattern of rule violations, if I heard the member correctly. It would also be good for those listening to this to hear who it is that has made that assessment.
Since the member says that rule violations have occurred, the member must also have an opinion on who has made that assessment. Is it any particular institution, or is it just the member themselves who is making that assessment? It would be good to get an answer to that question. It would clarify things a bit.
Our answer is very clear on this. The compliance instructions on this have been updated, which was requested by Eva Lindh. I thank you for the praise that we have done that work.
Since Eva Lindh speaks of a pattern, I wonder which cases in previous S governments she has particularly emphasized when public discussions have been held on this.
Since Eva Lindh says that rule violations have occurred, I wonder who has made that assessment. It would be good to get clear information about that.
Mr. Speaker! Finally: We often have the practice that it is the minister responsible for an area or a regulatory framework who answers the questions. In this case, it is I who am responsible for the rules, and therefore I answer the questions.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! There seem to be two things that recur in the Minister for Finance's debates. We have previously had debates on this and on other matters.
One thing is that the Minister for Finance seems to like very much to ask questions to the person who is asking the question. In one of our debates, someone has calculated that the Minister for Finance asked fifty questions to me during a single interpellation debate.
It is still a strange procedure. Interpellation debates are about the opposition's opportunities to ask questions to ministers and to the government. It is not about ministers having to ask more questions to the opposition, to members of parliament, than members of parliament ask to the minister and the government. It is very strange.
The second thing that is very clear in the Minister for Finance's own social media is that he loves to bring up things that the Social Democrats have done. It concerns past actions and policies. But now, surely the minister must start taking responsibility for his own policy? He must answer the questions that a Member of Parliament rightly may, can, and should ask the government.
Back to the question. We had a debate about the share purchases already in August. At that time, the Minister for Finance answered some of the questions I asked. This debate is against the background of the share purchases. But the question I have asked is what the Prime Minister considers and whether he has confidence in the ministers and the state secretaries who obviously have not followed the rules that nevertheless exist.
The problem is larger than individual transactions. Either the regulatory framework is unclear, or ministers and secretaries of state are not following the rules that apply. The Minister for Finance has here asked questions about what previous Social Democratic ministers may have done. I can answer the question about what has happened here.
It is, among other things, that ministers, that is to say members of the government, have not declared a conflict of interest when decisions have been made on matters concerning things in which they themselves hold shareholdings. It has been done once, from what I have been able to read – only once, despite the fact that decisions concerning their own shareholdings have been made on a number of occasions.
What is it about? It is about ministers and secretaries of state who have traded shares in companies that have been directly affected by the ministers' political decisions. Several have failed to report shareholdings and several have participated in decisions despite obvious conflicts of interest.
Does the Minister judge that all of this has occurred according to the rules that exist? That is my question, and I can still ask it here. Since I cannot ask the Prime Minister about his confidence and whether he thinks anything needs to be done, can the minister who is here still answer whether this is reasonable and correct?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by answering a question I noted. Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his cabinet ministers? The answer is yes, and the secretaries of state reasonably have their cabinet ministers' confidence. Confidence remains until otherwise notified. These are clear and distinct answers.
Mr. Speaker! It might get a bit messy for the listener. Sometimes one needs to ask questions of each other to understand what it is one is talking about. I asked whose assessment it is that rule violations have occurred. Has someone made this assessment, or is it Eva Lindh's entirely own assessment that such have occurred? Eva Lindh can certainly answer that.
We otherwise have different types of arrangements for reviewing how rules are complied with. It concerns the Committee on the Constitution, authorities and others. That is how we have normally organized our society, our democracy and our rule of law – with different types of institutions that examine, assess, judge and in other ways take a position on compliance with rules.
It is not so much out of personal curiosity that I ask the question, but rather based on the openness, transparency, and clarity that should characterize Sweden and Swedish democracy. Eva Lindh and I seem to share the same view on the latter. In this spirit of a will toward openness and transparency, it is of course good if Eva Lindh can be clear about who it is that has made the assessment of the rule violations she refers to. Is it Eva Lindh herself, or is it someone else who has made the assessments? I believe it would be good to get an answer to that.
Eva Lindh engages in these issues in an intensive way, and I believe that many then assume that she has obviously gone to the bottom of this and investigated what has been the case before and what has happened.
The intention and credibility behind criticism of others is often strengthened if one has a slightly more holistic view and makes a comprehensive assessment. If I understand correctly, Eva Lindh warmly safeguards openness and transparency and the functioning of democracy, and those are ambitions that I fully share.
I am therefore interested to know which previous cases Eva Lindh has paid particular attention to. Is Eva Lindh only interested in the issues of transparency and reliability when it is others who can be criticized, or are there previous cases that have also captured Eva Lindh's interest? It probably affects the listeners' assessment of the commitment to the issue.
I genuinely appreciate the intentions that Eva Lindh says she has. Accordingly, work has also been carried out, which I accounted for in my rather long and detailed response. I am convinced that Eva Lindh has also received it in writing so that she has been able to assess and analyze it. In the response, clarifications of the subject have been made.
A debate and a discussion are often such that one needs to ask each other what one actually means and intends. My two questions therefore consist of that, and they are thus not 50 but 2.
Who has assessed the violations? Is it Eva Lindh's own assessment, or is it someone else or an institution that has assessed them?
Finally: Are there other historical cases in previous governments that Eva Lindh has been involved in or interested in?
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! There is apparently a certain potential for improvement in any case when one can go from 50 to 2 questions.
I will answer the questions, and I will also thank you for the answer. The Minister says that the Prime Minister has confidence in his ministers. I hope then that the Minister has received this message directly from the Prime Minister. Or is this based on assumptions? Silence from the Prime Minister can, as we know, be interpreted in many ways.
In response to the Minister for Finance's question, I can say that this is obviously the Minister's own area of responsibility, so I believe he can read for himself that it is not only Eva Lindh who has made the assessment that this does not appear to follow the rules. He can look at the underlying material that exists.
The Minister for Finance asks what has happened previously. I can only state that Prime Minister Löfven urged his ministers not to own shares in order to avoid conflicts of interest. Some ministers take action, and other ministers do not.
What is so frustrating is that the Prime Minister does not answer either the journalists' questions or a completely reasonable question from a Member of Parliament as to whether the ministers have his confidence and whether he intends to do anything since he is responsible for the government.
I can give another example. In Norway, the Prime Minister took responsibility when this happened, and he let his minister resign. I am not saying that this is something Prime Minister Kristersson should do; I am only saying that he should respond at all.
Here we are met with silence, with absence, and with the Prime Minister repeatedly keeping himself away when questions about responsibility are asked. The Prime Minister is not only the Finance Minister's Prime Minister, but he is also my Prime Minister. One can expect answers.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the debate! I appreciate your commitment to transparency and openness in our Swedish democracy.
Mr. Speaker! I do, however, become a little concerned when the commitment has not extended so far that Eva Lindh has been able to note a single mistake that any social democrat has ever previously made. This means that the listener could misunderstand Eva Lindh's intention and believe that it is not about the commitment to openness and transparency but merely about wanting some form of partisan maneuvering.
I think generally that the questions of openness, transparency, and the safeguarding of our democracy should rise above that and be a bit bigger than that. I think Eva Lindh's investigations in the area could have led her to at least some case where one could have also noted self-criticism.
I believe it is very important to have a reflective approach so that one can see mistakes and shortcomings both in oneself and in others in order to then be able to step forward and solve the problems and rectify them. If one can only see mistakes in others, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that one will have difficulty rectifying the problems that Sweden occasionally has.
I also asked for the source of the assessment of the errors that Eva Lindh claims to know have been committed. Is it Eva Lindh's own assessment, or is it someone else's? No clear answer to that question was provided.
We have clarified the rules. Sweden shall be characterized by openness and transparency. Ministers in a Swedish government always have the Prime Minister's confidence.
With this, I would like to wish Eva Lindh and everyone listening a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope that in the Christmas spirit we can see both the merits of others and the shortcomings in ourselves. It is a good start to be able to move Sweden forward, to make the world better and to make people's lives safer and better.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.