Response to interpellation 2025/26:570 on trust in the government
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that trust is strengthened by the state functioning, that the economy is improving and crime is decreasing under the current Prime Minister 1. 2 M claims that Sweden has a unique economic development with high growth and low inflation 2. 3 M argues that there are clear guidelines for the population registry and that S-governments previously had problems with ministers' shareholdings and the use of Harpsund 3. 4 5 S considers that trust is destroyed by the Prime Minister's actions and private interests 4 5. 4 S argues that the Prime Minister's family has used the residence for representation linked to private business interests 4. 6 S argues that the Prime Minister has poor trust and that the government is not implementing the promised population registry reform 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)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked the Prime Minister what measures the Prime Minister intends to take so that confidence in the government can be strengthened. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
I am responding to the interpellation because I am responsible for the regulation of the financial markets, which includes the Act (2018:1625) on the obligation of certain public officials to report holdings of financial instruments, and for the authority Statens fastighetsverk.
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 disqualification, including delicacy bias, as well as information on how one should act to avoid conflicts of interest.
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. A revised memorandum was decided on 8 December 2025.
In addition, there are the Government Offices' ethical guidelines, which among other things concern conflict of interest. These were updated on June 2 of this year.
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.
For primarily security reasons, Sweden's prime ministers have been recommended to live in Sagerska huset since 1995. The Prime Minister also has access to Harpsund. Both properties are owned by the state and managed by Statens fastighetsverk. A prime ministerial residence shall, with high requirements for security, be a residence for the prime minister and his family as well as provide good opportunities for representation.
To maintain public confidence, it is naturally important to continuously review the rules and routines that exist. It cannot be ruled out that additional measures may become relevant in the future.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Finance! However, I am just as upset as Eva Lindh that the Prime Minister is not here to answer questions that fall within his area of responsibility.
The interpellation has been handed over to me, said Niklas Wykman. That is how it usually sounds when the ministers take over the work from the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister perhaps prefers his summer vacation with family, relatives, and friends. Maybe they are at some manor house somewhere, what do I know. In doing so, the government questions the Riksdag's assessment. It is possible for the government to do so, but it is not desirable.
Then, which is more unusual, the Minister for Finance gives a reason why it is specifically he who should answer the Prime Minister's questions and thus take over the responsibility for the government. It is that he is responsible for a law regarding the obligation for certain public officials to report holdings.
Furthermore, Niklas Wykman refers to a number of other documents that clearly fall under the responsibility of the Prime Minister, the Council of State, and the Government Offices. It is possible that Niklas Wykman is responsible for some law where this is included, but then the Prime Minister is actually responsible for the other documents that the Minister for Finance refers to.
If one looks at the government's website to see who is responsible for different issues, one sees very clearly that it is the Government Offices, where the Prime Minister is the head, that is responsible for these issues. That the Minister for Finance has responsibility for the financial market and gambling may be one thing, but this is deeply unfortunate.
It means that my question about what measures the Prime Minister intends to take so that confidence in the government can be strengthened can only be answered by discussing the rules regarding negligence when it comes to share deals, which the bourgeois government excels in. That is not actually what I am asking for.
I raised it as one of many examples, where the current government, where the Prime Minister has responsibility, has acted in such a way that trust in the government is destroyed. It is exactly as Eva Lindh said in the previous debate: It is about democracy.
We have a government led by a Prime Minister who acts in such a way, and who is responsible for a government that acts in such a way, that trust in the government is destroyed. My question was then how one could strengthen it.
It is naturally unfair to send forward a junior minister to take the Prime Minister's responsibility. It is unfair to expose Niklas Wykman to that. I realize that, Madam Speaker. But now the government has chosen to do so, and then I must turn to Niklas Wykman with my questions.
Niklas Wykman is known for his humor. He said that he is responsible for the National Property Board, and then he said this: "A prime minister's residence, with high security requirements, shall be a residence for the prime minister and his family as well as provide good opportunities for representation." He is completely right about that. The prime minister's family has, through their private involvement in the business sector, used the prime minister's residence for representation.
One must still give Niklas Wykman an eloge, because this is actually expressed in a rather amusing way. It is precisely the representation in Sagerska huset that it is about. The Prime Minister's family's private business interests have opened up the house and enabled representation. But it can hardly be that was the intention behind the reason why the Prime Minister should live in a Prime Minister's residence.
Is it the Prime Minister's private business interests that are to be given the opportunity for representation in Sagerska huset, Niklas Wykman?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! It is the end of the mandate period, and it is obviously not my place to fully review my political opponents or, for that matter, those who play on the same team. But if I were to take the liberty a little, I am convinced that Patrik Björck contributes in a constructive way to the democracy that he says he wants to protect.
While I am junior and humorless – or if I had humor now – I must say that Patrik Björck is extremely impactful and good for the democratic conversation and surely attracts one or another who is listening.
However, it is not certain that the substance always maintains the same high level as the rhetorical presentation. There are those who from time to time have bought a lottery ticket of some kind. I do not necessarily mean such a social democratic ticket, but it could be any ticket at all, for example a triss ticket. Then, when one has scratched a bit at the surface, perhaps only disappointment remains. It is not as truly dramatic as Patrik Björck wants to make it, despite everything.
However, Patrik Björck poses a particularly serious and important question, which I also intend to answer, regarding the trust in the government, or perhaps even in the state of Sweden. If one wants it to be strong, one must, in my opinion, succeed in its most important commitments – do what is most important so that the citizens can live in a secure, stable, and forward-looking country that gives people good conditions to live their lives in a good way.
My assessment is that after Magdalena Andersson had sat in the government for eight years, we took over a Sweden that was not in that condition. We saw lost control over the borders and major deficiencies in the population registry. Who was actually in this country? Crime was very high. For many years, seen to GDP per capita, we had an economic development rate that was among the worst in the entire European Union. It was about serious deficiencies in the core regarding the state's responsibility to secure the country's borders, keep track of who is in the country, ensure that we prevent and combat crime, and ensure that criminals stay behind bars and that honest people can move safely out in the streets and squares. In so many areas, Magdalena Andersson failed – due to carelessness, ignorance, lack of priorities, or whatever it may have been. In area after area, Sweden was not well-managed.
I agree with Patrik Björck that trust in the country must be safeguarded. The most important thing to safeguard that trust is, of course, that the state functions in its basic roles, serves the citizens' interests, and provides a security that can be relied upon: that crimes are investigated, that criminals are imprisoned, and that it is not the gangs that dictate the conditions on streets and squares, but this assembly that enacts the laws and rules that shall apply.
We took over a Sweden that was not fully in a position to meet legitimate demands from the citizens. We are not quite there yet, but much has moved in the right direction. When Magdalena Andersson ruled, the economy went down and crime went up. When Ulf Kristersson is Prime Minister, the economy goes up and crime goes down. If you want people to have confidence in the government, I, Patrik Björck, promise that it is much better now than it was then.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Now I think Niklas Wykman got a bit confused, because he held his concluding remarks in his second speech. Niklas Wykman is known for concluding his interpellation debates by talking about completely different issues than those the interpellation concerns. Now perhaps we can skip that concluding remark, and Niklas Wykman can use his concluding remark to talk about what the interpellation is about. I would be grateful for that.
But if we are to take up that thread, Niklas Wykman says "my assessment is", and so Niklas Wykman tells what his assessment is regarding the Swedish economy. Now, unfortunately, I do not have the Fiscal Policy Council's latest report with me, as I did not think we would be discussing fiscal policy. But I could have brought it with me, because I can state that the Fiscal Policy Council does not share Niklas Wykman's assessment regarding the brilliant state of the Swedish economy and how it is managed. Niklas Wykman is, of course, entitled to his assessment, but it is probably only a few, roughly as many as there are members of the government, who share that assessment. Otherwise, completely different assessments of the Swedish economy are likely being made.
This issue of how a government's power loses trust among the population is actually very much about the foundations of democracy. I could read out an editorial from a conservative newspaper from this past summer. There, it says that people question the Prime Minister's judgment and integrity; this is something he has caused for repeated times. It concerns a conservative editorialist. They bring up this apartment deal when the Prime Minister was social welfare councillor and talk about all the cronyism that occurred in that deal.
It is then noted that the business now continues into the so-called Fållöknastiftelsen, where the Prime Minister has own personal and private interests. One owns this manor, which is rented out to a foundation, and there is a hodgepodge of various friendship contacts. They support each other in different ways and have, for example, board meetings in the Prime Minister's official residence and the like.
In a bourgeois editorial, it is described that this is a really big problem. It is not just about getting people to work for free for this foundation. That can be discussed; such things can exist. But it is done by enticing with a good network. If you come and help the Prime Minister renovate his residence, you get access to a good network, it is written. It can also be noted that some of those who helped renovate the Prime Minister's residence subsequently received high-ranking state jobs or positions.
It is clear that this is very remarkable, thinks this bourgeois editorialist, who writes an agitated article about the Prime Minister's actions and also describes it as a thread, a tendency – something that has followed the Prime Minister throughout his entire political career, long before he became Prime Minister. Furthermore, an ancient quote is used to illustrate this: "Caesar's wife must not even be suspected." It is said that this quote has lived for 2,000 years and can be used to describe the trust for Sweden's Prime Minister.
It is clear that this is extremely serious, Niklas Wykman. It would be very good if Niklas Wykman could now explain to me, the members, those who are listening, and the TV viewers how the government intends to restore confidence. Only that and nothing else is what I would want an answer to.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! I stayed until the applause for Patrik Björck's speech had subsided so that it could not be suspected that the applause was given for my entry into the rostrum. I do not believe, in fact, that that was the purpose.
Patrik Björck says that I make my own assessment of the Swedish economy. If one looks at the election that lies ahead of us and the question of confidence, it is clear that it lies in the hands of the Swedish people to value and choose. Either one thinks that the type of accusations that Patrik Björck directs or the type of things he describes as he thinks are wrong is what will weigh heaviest, or one thinks that it is the final result that exists and that one can evaluate when it comes to the two prime ministerial candidates who are available.
Is it, as with Magdalena Andersson, a loss of control in a number of areas and weak economic growth in Sweden despite a global boom? Is it the failures regarding the population registration and the knowledge of who was located in Sweden, the poorly functioning – one might still say – migration policy, and how crime during Magdalena Andersson's years in government took hold in Sweden, both in depth and in breadth, and created a long series of problems?
Or does one have greater confidence in a leadership that has pushed back this crime? There are still major problems after many years of what leading Social Democrats themselves have described as being naive – I believe that is the word that has often been used – towards the societal development. Does one have greater confidence in this government, which has reversed the development? It is still not at a position that can be satisfied with, but it is significantly better than when Magdalena Andersson decided; the development is going in the right direction. This chamber will soon vote on further such measures.
Back to one's own judgment. Does the darkness that Patrik Björck describes prevail, or is it otherwise?
The European Commission is an independent party in this context that assesses the countries' economic development. According to their forecasts, Sweden currently has approximately three times as high economic growth as, for example, Germany and Italy, with half of their inflation, and twice as good economic development as the average in the EU or the euro countries, with half the inflation.
Sweden is, therefore, standing out in a unique way by having boosted the economy and defeated inflation. At the same time, we have addressed what was perhaps Magdalena Andersson's greatest failure, in fierce competition, namely crime. There, control over basic societal functions was lost and the criminals were allowed to eat deep into our communities, destroying many people's lives and creating a very large insecurity and anxiety in Swedish society.
The fundamental question in Patrik Björck's interpellation is about trust. People, of course, value this themselves. But to have a Prime Minister who solves problems instead of creating them, to have a Prime Minister who leads the country toward the best economic development instead of the worst, to have low inflation instead of over 10 percent, as it once was, and that one fights crime instead of creating conditions for it, naturally inspires more trust than the alternatives. That is my assessment.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! My assessment is, as I have said, that Niklas Wykman has a sense of humor. I stand by that, nothing else.
Then it is a bit exciting: Is there confidence? Niklas Wykman says that people should have confidence in the skilled government that we have now. But they don't! The Prime Minister has very poor confidence.
Of course, one should not predict events in advance, and we have to see what the election result will be. But I know that there is crisis and panic in the Moderate Party because the government has such incredibly low confidence among the people. There is crisis and panic among leading Moderates. Even out in the municipalities, people are terrified by the low confidence that the government in general, and specifically the Prime Minister, has. If Niklas Wykman thinks it is good to measure confidence, then it becomes a bit amusing.
Niklas Wykman's penchant for talking about something completely different from what the interpellation is about is well known. Now it was the population registry that came up as such an example.
I have had the privilege of sitting in the Committee on Taxation during this parliamentary term. There, we have demanded the promised population registration reform. One was supposed to count every toothbrush, I believe it was said, but they have actually done nothing. They promise and promise, and then they do nothing. It is not so strange that people do not have confidence in the government or in the one who leads the government, in this case the Prime Minister.
We shall have to see if Niklas Wykman can stick to this in his final conclusion. The question is important and cannot be trifled away. It is important that the institutions – the government, regardless of political color, and the Prime Minister as an institution – have high confidence for democracy to survive.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! In my assessment, Patrik Björck is not correct regarding the economic development. I believe more in the European Commission's assessment than in Patrik Björck's.
He is definitely not right when it comes to restoring order and clarity in the population register. More on this and what is happening in the area can be read by Patrik Björck and all interested parties on the government's website. In a previous interpellation debate, I went through the changes that have been made so that we have better and clearer guidelines with transparency and order and clarity. Patrik Björck was in the chamber then and heard everything, so I do not intend to repeat it. What can possibly be said is that this is not the first time that such things have been discussed. But the agitation seems great now.
I can read some newspaper headlines from previous S-government periods: "Minister invests in weapons and tobacco." "Bolund on Investor shares: I didn't buy them myself." "New minister refuses to disclose list of their shareholdings." "MP ministers invest in coal and oil funds." "The S-ministers' fund profits – she has by far the largest portfolio." "The politicians were unaware of the investments – reviewing the holdings." "This is how the government invests its money." All of this applies to S-governments.
When it comes to housing: Göran Persson
met according to the media the building inspector who was to grant construction permission for his private farm and served lunch at Harpsund. Göran and Anitra married at Harpsund. The former S minister Björn Rosengren – I believe he was some kind of business consultant at the time – married at Harpsund after he had left the ministerial post. Ingvar Carlsson arranged, according to the media, a wedding party for his daughter at Harpsund. And something that perhaps really stings in the hearts of the Social Democrats: The Erlander couple are said, according to media reports, to have arranged student parties at Harpsund when it happened.
Throwing stones is rarely good. Doing it in a glass house is even worse, Patrik Björck.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.