Response to interpellation 2025/26:559 on the government's measures following reports of share trading and conflict of interest
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 government's measures to strengthen compliance with rules on impartiality and conflicts of interest. M argues that the Government Offices' guidelines and routines have been updated to create clarity and better support 1 2. M believes that there is a broad consensus regarding the need for order and clarity 2 3, that updates to the regulatory frameworks are good 4, and that an individual's incorrect actions do not necessarily mean that the regulatory frameworks are inadequate 4. S argues that recurring deficiencies in reporting are serious and are a matter of culture and leadership 5 6. S believes that trust in democracy is important 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.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked the Prime Minister what concrete measures the Prime Minister and the government have taken since the reporting on ministers' and secretaries of state's share transactions to strengthen compliance with rules on impartiality and conflicts of interest, what changes in routines, control functions, or reporting requirements have been implemented in the Government Offices during the past year, and whether the Prime Minister considers that the measures taken have been sufficient to ensure public confidence in the government's handling of these issues. Eva Lindh has also asked whether the Prime Minister intends to take further initiatives to strengthen transparency regarding ministers' and secretaries of state's economic interests and securities holdings, and how the Prime Minister ensures that situations that could give rise to suspicions of delicacy bias or conflicts of interest do not arise in the government's decision-making.
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 several interpellations with similar questions during last year.
In addition to the Act and Regulation (2018:2014) on the obligation for certain public officials to report ownership of financial instruments, there are the Government Offices' guidelines. The memorandum Conflicts of Interest for Ministers (SB PM 2021:3) contains descriptions of various grounds for bias, including delicacy bias, as well as information on how one should act to avoid conflicts of interest. Furthermore, there are the Government Offices' ethical guidelines, which, among other things, concern bias.
Through the RK-portal, which was introduced in the autumn of 2024, the ministers receive parts of other departments' agendas the day before the government meeting, which has facilitated for the ministers to identify such situations where a conflict of interest may occur.
When it comes to financial instruments, there is also the memorandum Holding of financial instruments (SB PM 2019:3). The memorandum highlights the risk of bias and other conflicts of interest in the holding of financial instruments. It also contains information on how and when such holdings shall be reported in accordance with the Act on the obligation of certain public officials to report holdings of financial instruments.
The ministers' and secretaries of state's declarations of financial instruments are compiled in a list of their holdings. The list is public and thus creates conditions for transparency and scrutiny.
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 registers that are public.
The Office of the Chief Legal Counsel in the Government Offices has conducted 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 holding of financial instruments. On 2 June this year, the Government Offices' ethical guidelines were also updated.
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 was 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.
To maintain public trust, it is naturally important to continuously review the existing rules and procedures, among other things to avoid the occurrence of conflicts of interest. It cannot be ruled out that additional measures may become relevant in the future. This is being considered within the framework of the ongoing work on these issues.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Most debates and questions here in the chamber are about politics. But there are also questions and debates that are about trust and morality. This debate is about trust and morality.
Sweden has long built its strength on an administrative culture characterized by openness, impartiality, and high integrity. Citizens must be able to trust that decisions are made for the country's best and not based on the decision-makers' private economic interests.
That is exactly why the recurring revelations about the share dealings of ministers and secretaries of state are so serious. We have seen a lack of reporting of shareholdings. We have seen dealings that have not been reported. We have seen ministers and secretaries of state participate in decisions where obvious questions of bias and conflicts of interest have arisen, and we have seen it time and again.
I would like to thank for the answer from the Minister for Finance, which I find to be both serious, comprehensive, and clear. But I would still like to start by saying that I have posed the question to the Prime Minister. There are reasons for that, and the Minister for Finance's answer makes it even clearer that it should be the Prime Minister who is here and answering. Let me return to this.
Anyone can make a mistake, said someone who would try to defend what had happened. Perhaps, but this is still serious. I think it is questionable, but okay. When the same type of problem recurs time and again, however, it is no longer just a question of individual mistakes, but then it is about culture, leadership, and responsibility. It is about how the government functions and about who ultimately is responsible for ensuring that the rules are followed. And that responsibility lies with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson.
When the Prime Minister took office, he promised to always put the common good before private interests. The Swedish people have the right to remind him of that promise. That is why I have asked some fairly simple questions: Has the Prime Minister continued to have confidence in those ministers and secretaries of state who have repeatedly ended up in such situations? What concrete measures has the Prime Minister taken? What changes to routines, control functions, or reporting requirements have been made?
But the Prime Minister does not answer. Not once, in the times I have submitted an interpellation on this, has the Prime Minister answered. It has always been the Minister for Finance who has either taken it on or been summoned, and this time the Minister for Finance has stated a clear reason. However, it is not the Minister for Finance who appoints ministers. It is not he who leads the government, and it is not he who bears the ultimate responsibility for the culture that has emerged in the Government Offices.
Minister Niklas Wykman has, in his response, stated some reasons why some updates have been made. But nevertheless, this has happened again, and that was why I submitted this interpellation. Despite all this, it is happening again. What needs to be changed in the culture to put a stop to this?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh – if I do not remember incorrectly, we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. I also think it appears from Eva Lindh's answer that that is the case.
What, in my assessment, has been added since we last discussed this issue is exactly which measures have been taken, and even if I do not interpret from Eva Lindh's contribution that she has a one hundred percent confidence in the government and our policy, I still think I can discern that she feels she has received an answer on the substantive issue. That is important. When things do not work in a satisfactory way, what do you do about it? According to the Government Offices, the guidelines have been updated and the routine improved so that it should become better and clearer. If I remember correctly, we would have had this debate before the summer, but it came now instead. I therefore hope that Eva Lindh can feel satisfied that the question, which has returned a few times, has now received an answer.
I conclude my answer by saying that one must have clear guidelines, good follow-up, and clear documentation. It is difficult to see that Eva Lindh and I have different views regarding this. There are always rotten eggs in society – gang criminals and others whom we need to combat – but I believe very few are of a different opinion than that there should be order and discipline.
I also perceive that Eva Lindh thinks that the changes that have been made are good. It is at least my assessment that it is better and clearer in the way the rules are now being designed.
Madam Speaker! I believe I have actually answered the questions about what we are doing. I have explained what we have done, how the guidelines have changed, and how the process has been updated to be able to meet the type of problems that Eva Lindh is concerned about. I am pleased that there is a broad consensus regarding these matters. We agree that there should be order and clear processes. That is how it shall be in Sweden, and when something goes wrong, one must, of course, counteract the possibility of the same mistake being repeated by improving the existing routines and processes, which I have described in my answer.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! That is correct – I believe it is the third time we have had this debate. I therefore understand if the Minister for Finance may perhaps get a little tired of partially hearing the same things. It is clear that a good deal of the fundamental problem recurs. Not everyone has listened to the two previous debates, and there is still a number of people who are interested.
I do not think, however, that the Minister for Finance listened to my last half-minute where I said that I have read about the changes that have been made – it is not the case that I just show up here. I have no criticism of them and do not think they are bad.
What I said, the question I am asking now and that it concerned before the summer when I requested this debate – I also do not remember the reason why it did not take place – is that despite some changes having been made, this has recurred. It happened most recently in December. I remember clearly that the Minister for Civil Affairs did the same thing as he had apologized for previously and which he did not think was so damn good. Something must be wrong when the problem recurs.
It is difficult to keep count of all the times this has happened – before the change, but also after. That is, there is a pattern. That is why I bring this up. Had it happened once, it might not have been a subject for a debate – at least not three debates. But apparently, it took several debates to remind that this is an important issue. There is a pattern that should worry every government. Politics is not just about political proposals but also about trust, and trust is not a law of nature. Trust must be earned, and it can be depleted.
I am preoccupied by this issue not only because it is someone other than my own party who sits in the government, but because I think it is important to earn the trust of voters – of people, of Swedes – that politicians make decisions that are in Sweden's interest, not in their personal or private economic interest.
The Minister for Finance speaks about details, circumstances, laws and regulations and so on, but there has obviously not been any major change. The problems have returned. Why? If the routines and the changes that have been made are sufficient – why does the government end up in this situation again?
I think it would have been good to speak with the one who leads the government, because leadership matters. I have heard that the Prime Minister has commented on this, but he has not been here to answer my questions. I want to discuss the responsibility. When errors are committed in such cases, the Prime Minister actually bears the great responsibility.
When people see ministers participating in decisions while simultaneously having economic interests, it matters less whether a lawyer later concludes that a certain paragraph has not been violated. The trust has been damaged nonetheless.
It is good that changes have been made. It is good that the Minister for Finance explains those changes – but why does the problem recur? Why has the culture not been dealt with?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! I am very pleased with Eva Lindh's concern regarding the confidence in the government. She is, of course, free to work for increased confidence in the government. I am not entirely sure that she has it high on the agenda, at least not in the coming weeks, but if she wants to launch a campaign for this, she is warmly welcome.
In different statements about different people's actions and so on, there may certainly be nuances that set them apart, but in substance I state that Eva Lindh and I agree. Eva Lindh also says that she is satisfied with or at least has no objections to the changes that have been made to the regulations. I understand it as her thinking that the changes are good. Whether they are sufficient is another matter.
I concluded my interpellation answer by saying that it is possible that further measures will need to be taken in the future to ensure that there is full order and clarity. It can never be ruled out that further reinforcements may be needed. The ethical guidelines were updated on 2 June, and it is clear that the assessment made is that they shall contribute to good decisions being made, that things are done in the right way, and that different types of problems or concerns do not arise.
Just as Eva Lindh says, something went wrong in one case, and the person has apologized for it. That is how it is. The question is whether one can do something about it by further sharpening routines, processes, and other things. I mentioned a long series of measures that have been taken so that the system should be robust with increased transparency and clarity, but also contain clear guidelines for what type of actions the individual is expected to take.
Madam Speaker! It is a campaign. It is clear that in some ways it belongs to democracy to in one way or another discredit each other or try to spread mistrust regarding the other alternative. I still want to say that I am happy. It may not be a state of mind considered typical for me, but I think it is good that we agree on the basic rules of the game. There does not seem to be any contradiction there.
Previously, Eva Lindh had questions about what changes would occur. It was an ongoing process, so those questions could not be fully answered at that time. The work in that part was not finished. Now it is, and I take away that it seems as if Eva Lindh thinks the work has been well performed from the Government Offices' side.
There must be clarity and transparency. We are probably not in disagreement on the substance. Of course, one must follow the rules that exist. There seems to be broad consensus on this. Let us work to ensure it continues that way! Each and every one must, of course, pull their weight so that there is robustness in these systems.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not lie awake at night thinking about improving confidence in this government, but I do care about democracy. I think it is important that there is confidence in democracy and its rules of the game and how it functions.
It is a problem when this arises. It doesn't just reflect poorly on the government that does this and which actually needs to take responsibility for it. It reflects poorly on all politicians and on democracy as a whole. Therefore, I think it is important to do something about the matter when such things are detected, regardless of which government is in power at that time.
I am not entirely satisfied, and that is due to how the Prime Minister has acted. What I have requested is leadership. I have read that there are rules stating that one may not make decisions if, for example, one owns a share in the company the decision concerns. That is a simplified explanation of what conflict of interest means. It is outrageous that the Prime Minister does not take on more of the leadership, because this has obviously not been about something being wrong in the guidelines but about a problematic culture. It seems as if people think it is okay to act this way, because it continues.
Another reason why I am not satisfied is that I had hoped that Prime Minister Kristersson would have done as Prime Minister Löfven did when it comes to, for example, share purchases and said that ministers should not buy shares. Those conditions should apply in his government. I therefore do not think that enough has been done, but I am satisfied with the answer. It is good that the guidelines have been updated.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for this discussion and the previous discussions during the term that has been! Obviously, we are at a point where we at least think it is good that these updates have been made.
We seem to have the same basic position on the issue regarding transparency and clarity and how the guidelines should be designed. Then Eva Lindh seems to want to make a big point of the fact that one person said that it was wrong at one occasion. It does not necessarily have to be an indication that all guidelines and regulations would therefore be insufficient. But if it were to turn out that there are a lot of errors and it continues, then perhaps it is so. It is not certain that one person at one occasion is a sufficiently strong argument for the guidelines and rules that exist to be insufficient. We shall see.
Eva Lindh and I are, I believe, in general agreement that we have different views on who should be Prime Minister in Sweden and whom one has the greatest confidence in on that matter. I believe we could debate that here in the rostrum for a long time without reaching any consensus. Eva Lindh prefers Magdalena Andersson's leadership, and the person speaking now prefers Ulf Kristersson's leadership.
During Ulf Kristersson's time in power, crime has gone down and the economy has gone up. Under Magdalena Andersson's leadership, it was exactly the opposite. Then the economy went down and crime went up. One has to choose what one thinks is truly important. I think it is better when the economy goes up and crime goes down than when crime goes up and the economy goes down. But if this, we have many other forums to discuss in the coming weeks.
I am glad that we have a consensus that the updates made in these regulations are good, because it is important for Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.