Response to interpellation 2025/26:85 on the use of the Prime Minister's residence
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the use of the Prime Minister's residence, Sagerska huset. M argued that the residence is a service residence where the family and work environment may use it for private purposes and representation, but that external actors may not lease it for events 1. M emphasized that Niklas Wykman is answering because he is responsible for Statens fastighetsverk 2 3. S criticized that a colleague answered instead of the Prime Minister and argued that it is inappropriate to lease the residence for lobby events for independent schools 4 5 6. S claimed that the Prime Minister has made himself at home in the residence and that it is the taxpayers' property 4 5. M accused S of hypocrisy and pointed out that previous Prime Ministers have also used the residence for private parties 7 3.
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! Linus Sköld has asked the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister considers it to have been within the applicable regulatory framework to make the Prime Minister's residence available for a friskola's anniversary celebration and how the Prime Minister intends to use the Prime Minister's residence going forward.
The question has been referred to me.
Sagerska huset came out for sale in the autumn of 1988. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs ordered an acquisition and that the property should be managed by the Government Offices. The acquisition was justified by security reasons, as Sagerska huset was adjacent to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The assessment was that from both a security and confidentiality point of view, it was important that the state had full control over the activities conducted within the property. In connection with these discussions, a need for a permanent Prime Minister's residence was also noted. It is today the National Property Board that manages Sagerska huset.
A prime minister's family is in need of extensive security measures. When Sagerska huset was to be converted into a prime minister's residence, the Swedish Security Service considered the house suitable as a prime minister's residence due to the house's location adjacent to the Government Offices' premises. To have the right to stay in the house, one must belong to the family or the prime minister's work environment or be invited. A prime minister's residence must, while having high security requirements, also be able to offer a pleasant and secluded private family home as well as provide good opportunities for representation.
Sagerska huset is the Prime Minister's official residence, and there are no guidelines for how the Prime Minister or his family may use the residence. That the Prime Minister and others in the family, for example, can host a larger number of guests in connection with private events linked to the family members' commitments and everyday life lies entirely within the scope of a normal use of a residence. On the other hand, Sagerska huset cannot be rented out to external actors and their events and activities.
The Prime Minister can also in the future be expected to use Sagerska huset for both family needs as well as for representation.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! Initially, I really only have one single, obvious question: What is Niklas Wykman doing here?
I have asked a question to the Prime Minister regarding how the Prime Minister has used and intends to use the Prime Minister's residence. Why is Niklas Wykman here answering that question?
Suppose the circumstances were the opposite, that Niklas Wykman was the one representing the owner of my residence and asked me questions about how I use my residence. Would Niklas Wykman then think it was a good idea that I let one of my colleagues at work answer the question?
The fact is that Sagerska huset is owned by the state, which means the citizens. The primary representatives of the citizens are the Riksdag. The Riksdag exercises oversight over the government. In this case, I am therefore the owner's representative and ask the person who manages Sagerska huset how he intends to manage it going forward, and he then sends a colleague to answer.
When Niklas Wykman returns to the Ministry of Finance after this debate, I think he should call the Prime Minister as the first thing he does and say that it was embarrassing to have to answer for how you will use your residence going forward.
This is, as Niklas Wykman pointed out, a private residence. It may be used for private reasons. It is a benefit that the Prime Minister has alongside his fee of 204,000 kronor per month and his recreation site.
And the Prime Minister has truly made this a private family residence. He has made himself at home – built a home gym, bought furnishings and fixed up lamps. At the beginning of the mandate period, a major revelation emerged that he had furnished Sagerska palatset with items and a home gym worth half a million.
In light of the fact that the Prime Minister has made himself at home and regards this as a private residence, it becomes even stranger that it is precisely Niklas Wykman who is here and answering.
My question initially is therefore: What is Niklas Wykman doing here?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! It is a very simple question to answer, because it is Statens fastighetsverk that manages these housing units and I am responsible for Statens fastighetsverk. If Linus Sköld had bothered with a single Google search, it would have been clear to him.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! Of course, Niklas Wykman is responsible for the National Property Board. I have also figured out that it is Niklas Wykman's reason for being here. But that is not a reason to advocate for the Prime Minister on how he should use his private residence owned by the taxpayers.
What prompted this interpellation was an invitation that had been sent out to alumni of a private school. Holding pure lobby events for private schools in the Prime Minister's residence must nevertheless be beyond the limit of how it is intended to be used.
I do not intend to say anything about whether the Prime Minister should be allowed to have a party or not in his private residence. It is clear that he should be allowed to have it. It is clear that his relatives should be allowed to celebrate even-numbered birthdays at Harpsund. It is clear that his daughter should be allowed to have a party with her student association at Harpsund. It is clear that Kristersson's friends should be invited to a party at Sagerska palatset.
The problem in this regard then becomes who the Prime Minister's friends are. We have known from before that the Prime Minister has owned a summer cottage together with a private school owner. That Kristersson is friends with the entire private school lobby is what makes this problematic. It is not in the taxpayers' interest that the private school lobby should be at events in Sagerska Palace.
I think it is deeply inappropriate to provide the Prime Minister's residence – the taxpayers' property – for a pure lobby event for a private school. Don't you think so too, Niklas Wykman?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Nothing, or at least very little, of what Linus Sköld said is correct or has anything to do with reality. Indignant and in a theatrical tone, which is quite similar to many other Social Democrats, Linus Sköld tried to sell a reality that does not match. Words and concepts were used that have nothing to do with reality or what has happened.
Mr. Speaker! We recognize the theatrical technique of many Social Democrats. Perhaps one practices it at some course or similar? However, it does not turn falsehoods into truths or unreality into reality. Things and matters are as they truly are.
Linus Sköld repeatedly stated that it concerns the Prime Minister's private residence but still wants a public debate on how it is used. It is quite strange fundamentally given the security situation prevailing in Sweden regarding politicians, government representatives, and others. The Prime Minister's life is arranged in a certain way that the Prime Minister cannot fully control themselves in order to guarantee security for the country's highest-ranking individuals. It is perfectly natural; anything else would be strange.
It is also perfectly natural to have friends or family. Linus Sköld perhaps dreams back to a time when family members were only housewives or accessories and did not have their own lives. It is surely perfectly natural that, for example, the Prime Minister's wife should be able to do things or meet people in her residence? The event Linus Sköld refers to has, however, not taken place in Sagerska.
Mr. Speaker! Perhaps all of this stems from some kind of frustration over how things have looked lately. Linus Sköld is more than moderately insinuating regarding things he believes have occurred but has perhaps forgotten that Göran Persson, if I understood correctly, met the building inspector who was to grant the construction permit and served lunch at Harpsund.
Linus Sköld may have forgotten that Ingvar Carlsson arranged a wedding for his daughter at Harpsund – or at least a wedding party, if one is to believe what is written in the newspaper. I am not saying it was a pure Las Vegas wedding, but didn't Göran Persson arrange a wedding for some high-ranking business consultant at Harpsund? If one is to believe the media, that was the case.
Student reunions have, if I have understood correctly, been organized at Harpsund under the auspices of Social Democratic prime ministers at least since 1961.
Something that seems a bit complicated, which Linus Sköld might be able to answer, is that there have been many scandals surrounding the Social Democrats' lottery. According to media reports, gang criminals in Spain have called elderly and demented people to sell lottery tickets. A somewhat spicy piece of information regarding this that has circulated is the claim that SSU in some way raffled off a weekend at Harpsund with the then Social Democratic Prime Minister. I did not get full clarity on that when I read about it, but perhaps Linus Sköld can clear that up.
Mr. Speaker! There is something quite special about double standards.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have not said a single thing that is untrue. I did not mention that the planned friskole lobby event was cancelled after this became a big issue in the media. Perhaps it was that the Prime Minister had something to do with it because he realized the inappropriateness of organizing friskole lobby events in the Prime Minister's residence? It is not clear, because the Prime Minister has not answered questions on this.
We do not get an answer today either because the Prime Minister is not here and can answer questions about his use of the Prime Minister's residence. What we get is whataboutism, that is, smoke and mirrors so that Niklas Wykman can avoid talking about the obvious, namely the embarrassing fact of using the Prime Minister's residence for the friskolelobby's event and then refusing to answer questions about it and instead sending forward a colleague to do so. That is the answer we get today.
We get smoke and mirrors so that people can avoid talking about what the matter is actually about: Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to use the Prime Minister's residence to arrange lobby events for independent schools? That was the question I asked. It was not the question I received an answer to. I have, therefore, asked two questions: Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to use the Prime Minister's residence in this way? And still: What is Niklas Wykman doing here?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! One could obviously hold a political science seminar for Linus Sköld to sort out the government's role and my responsibility for Statens fastighetsverk. However, I am not convinced that it would help particularly much. I do not believe that was the purpose of Linus Sköld's presentation regarding this issue.
No such event as Linus Sköld refers to has taken place. Linus Sköld can be as interested as he wants as to whom the Prime Minister's wife, or for that matter the Prime Minister himself, has private dinners with. I do not know if it is a good debate for this rostrum.
No crime against any regulatory framework has occurred at all, as far as I know. Probably not either what Linus Sköld knows. Linus Sköld seems surprised that the Minister responsible for Statens fastighetsverk answers questions regarding how Statens fastighetsverks premises are used. I think that possibly surprises Linus Sköld, but not many others.
Mr. Speaker! I saw a film this weekend, Nürnberg, which partially tries to get to the bottom of how people can do horrific things and what drives people's psyches toward different things. This obviously concerns a completely different issue, of far less serious character than the devilish evil that was unfolding then. But it is still something with measuring other people by one yardstick and oneself by a completely different one. There I would like to say that in a party, the Social Democrats, who are very good at double standards, Linus Sköld has shown himself to be a master.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.