Defense industry strategy for a stronger Sweden - innovation, production and cooperation

Per Söderlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the Defense Committee's proposal for a decision, so that I do not forget it.

The security policy situation remains worrying and uncertain. Russia is, and will be, a serious threat to Sweden and Europe for the foreseeable future. It can be said without exaggeration that the threat has increased recently, with Russian violations of our allies' airspace.

Russia's actions have been threatening for a long time, but the threat came very close to us on the morning of 24 February 2022 when we were met with the news that Russia had entered Ukraine with full force. Since then, over 1 million people have been seriously injured or killed in Ukraine. The number of civilian casualties is also high: approximately 50,000 wounded and killed, according to the latest verified data. The number may be significantly higher because it is difficult to obtain reliable information from the areas occupied by Russia. It is, however, absolutely clear that the human suffering is enormous.

Mr. Speaker! In order for something similar not to affect Sweden and our allies, we need a strong and deterrent defense, something we Sverigedemokrater have pointed out since we entered the Riksdag in 2010.

A strong defense is built on several parts, of which the defense industry is one. Therefore, we are pleased that the government has complied with several of our views in the defense industry strategy. The strategy presents measures to strengthen the business sector's conditions to contribute to Sweden's security.

Mr. Speaker! Few, if any, countries of our size manage to produce advanced systems in as many areas as we do. Combat aircraft, combat vehicles, artillery and sensor systems are some examples of areas where Sweden is at the absolute forefront and exports war materiel to several other countries. It is therefore not only Sweden that benefits from our defense industry, but it is an asset for Europe, Nato and large parts of the world, not least Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! Technical development in the world is moving faster than ever. New technology emerges so quickly that one hardly has time to decide which TV to buy before it feels old-fashioned. The development on the battlefield is no exception – if anything, it is perhaps even faster.

When the war in Ukraine broke out in full scale in 2022, a type of drone could be used for about six months before countermeasures were developed. Today, they are estimated to be usable for four to six weeks, possibly shorter, before the enemy figures out how to take them out. In the Western world, we have significantly longer development times than that. This is something that is addressed in the strategy through several measures. FOI and FMV are some of the key actors here, and they have received expanded mandates with a focus on precisely innovation.

Mr. Speaker! In war, enormous amounts of materiel and ammunition are consumed. Therefore, production is crucial for both defense and deterrence. Fortunately, the defense industry has managed to keep its head above water during the strategic timeout.

Small orders and short production times have been common, until now. Now the demand for orders is large, and large quantities of ammunition and materiel need to be produced quickly. It is a transition that is not always completely simple to carry out, and even the EU has taken measures for this.

To increase production, expanded environmental permits are often needed, which is not always entirely simple to obtain. It is welcome and much-needed that the permit processes are now being reviewed in the Government Offices. Facilitating the granting of permits is necessary to facilitate the build-up of the defense industry.

Investments are also necessary to increase production, but the industry hesitates – entirely understandably – to make necessary investments if future orders are not guaranteed. One way to meet this is to distribute risks through conditional, state investments in production capacity, something that is also proposed in the strategy. This has already occurred by the state co-financing an expansion of the production of artillery ammunition.

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, banks and investors, including regions and municipalities, have hesitated to invest in the defense industry because it has not been considered sustainable. It is unpleasant to say it, but even my region has made decisions on a sustainable investment policy, which means that investments in the defense industry are being withheld.

Now more and more investors are waking up after the eternal peace and reviewing their investment plans, so is my region. I hope that more follow suit so that the defense industry, which has suffered from this for a long time, finally gets the support and recognition it deserves.

Mr. Speaker! NATO's defense industrial capability is complex and is largely built on international cooperation. This also applies to our defense industry, which cooperates closely with many other countries. Therefore, it is welcome that the strategy also aims to strengthen such cooperation, not least with Ukraine.

Export has been a key to survival for our defense industry during the strategic timeout. Without export, it is doubtful whether the Swedish defense industry would have survived, at least as a Swedish defense industry.

Export will also be an important success factor in the future. With this strategy, the state strengthens export support, which enables a broadened customer base for our industry.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the defense industry strategy shall promote an innovative and competitive defense industry with high production capacity. In a changing world, the measures will be developed progressively in step with changed global conditions. Implementation and follow-up of the defense industry strategy will therefore take place continuously.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication on the defense industry strategy.

This is something that we Social Democrats have been waiting for. We have also pointed out for a long time that it is a document that Sweden is in need of to the highest degree.

We find ourselves in a very strained global situation with threats almost daily and various attacks in our surroundings, so it is incredibly important that we strengthen our defense capability.

We have made many decisions on this in this chamber. We have had a defense commission that has reviewed many of the important issues when it comes to equipping our defense. Just as the previous speaker said, the defense materiel is a decisive factor moving forward.

This has been handled in consensus, which is positive for the country, for the realm, for our future security, and also from the perspective of other countries' views on Sweden. The appropriations for defense materiel will be at significantly higher levels going forward, which will be of decisive importance for the future.

In Sweden, we have historically had a state defense industry that has served us well with innovations and the development of new products that have also been in demand internationally. A good deal of those products have also been able to be applied to the civil market. Technical knowledge, industrial knowledge, and other things have been used to develop also for the civil market.

Today, the industry is privately owned and export-oriented, as it was previously. There is high specialized expertise in the Swedish defense industry with world-leading products and cost-effectiveness that constitute the Swedish companies' competitive advantages.

The defense industry in Sweden has been built up over a long period with defense and security policy reasons as the basis. We had a period in the country's history when we disarmed very much. During that time, the defense industry also declined for a fairly long period, for understandable reasons.

This has in turn resulted in that some of the world's best and most advanced products and weapons systems have been developed in Sweden, from submarines, artillery and combat vehicles to, now, advanced sensors, robots and combat aircraft. These are only a few parts.

In almost all of our counties, we have some supplier to the defense industry, either directly or indirectly, so it is a market that is truly growing. Above all, all signs indicate that this will be the case for a long time to come. One can have different views on that, but it is based on the global situation and other factors.

The Swedish defense industry is a key component in the defense of Sweden and Europe and our allies and partners, and it also contributes to employment and export revenues, even internationally. We have a fairly significant market where we sell materiel, naturally in controlled forms. There is a strictly regulated framework for how this is to take place. We also have several significant international main suppliers, and we develop products together with other companies in other nations.

We often and much talk about the large defense companies. But we must remember that they make up barely a fifth of the Swedish defense industrial base. There are many small companies all around the country that supply this market and which also see a future development. But several of the companies are foreign-owned. One also has operations in a number of countries, which is positive.

From a European perspective and also an international perspective, many of the companies are state-owned, wholly or partially. There are several such examples in our neighboring countries.

The defense industry is developing rapidly. Today, there are approximately 22,000 employees in the 25 largest Swedish defense companies, which account for approximately 90 percent of Swedish military equipment sales. We are, of course, very keen to have a well-developed industry that can meet the future with new products.

There are a total of approximately 500 companies with barely 160,000 employees that have Försvarets materielverk as a customer. It also shows what I said earlier – that even the small companies are active in this market.

All products manufactured are under the supervision of the Inspectorate for Strategic Products, which has a clear regulatory framework for what may and may not be exported.

In the strategy, three areas are pointed out that one wants to further develop: innovation, production and cooperation. All three areas are very important for the future in this part.

The Government will return in future budget bills in the parts that require changed frameworks. We emphasize in one of our reservations that it is important to report documents within areas that have been reclaimed.

State credit guarantees will be required for new production lines. We already see that need today. It is difficult for companies to start operations. That is because a fairly large amount of capital is required initially before one has been able to begin their exports. We see the necessity of finding some form of financial solution linked to that – it could be investment support, credit guarantees, and other things – in order to be able to handle the initial cost when it comes to technology, production lines, and other things.

Swedish control over critical defense materiel production needs to be ensured through increased state ownership in strategically important parts of the defense industry.

I will conclude by moving for the approval of two reservations, Mr. Speaker.

The first is reservation 4 regarding Swedish control over defense materiel production. There, we point out precisely this—that state ownership will be required in strategically important parts of the defense industry—as a very pressing issue.

The second, which is also very important, is reservation 9 regarding Nordic cooperation within the defense industrial area. There we see that we have much more to do when it comes to cooperation with the other Nordic countries. One has a strong defense industry there as well – albeit state-owned, wholly or partially – but also a completely different influence linked to this. We also point out that that market naturally must be further developed so that we can achieve more land gains together with partners in that part.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Püss (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a clear direction in defense industry policy. In a serious security situation, the business sector needs to be mobilized so that the military defense shall have the endurance, the equipment, and the technical edge required to defend Sweden.

As early as 2019, the then Defense Committee pointed out the need for a strategy. Since then, the world has changed. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Sweden's accession to NATO have fundamentally changed the security policy conditions within which we operate. Therefore, it is with great joy and satisfaction that we can now process this document in the Riksdag and demonstrate a coherent policy with concrete measures to meet the challenges we see.

The Swedish defense industry stands strong today, but it faces growing challenges. Our companies are leaders in several high-tech areas, but they operate in a global competition where investments, tempo, and long-term perspective determine the future.

Therefore, it is crucial that we now create stable and predictable conditions. It is about the state being a long-term and clear customer. It is about us securing capacity for production, especially in the most critical areas, and that we protect the entire value chain from basic research to series production.

But it is also about something more fundamental: that we clearly show the industry that it is a part of the total defense, not an annex but a necessary and obvious part of Sweden's security.

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret that some parties would prefer that the state enters as an owner in strategic companies. We Moderates see the matter differently. The state should take responsibility, but it does so best by being a clear customer, through long-term contracts and through strategic purchasing patterns – not by governing every company with political finger-pointing.

At the same time, it is reasonable that the state has tools ready for extraordinary situations, such as in the event of an armed conflict or a serious crisis. In those cases, special laws, for example regarding preparedness stocks, intervention orders, or credit guarantees, may be put into use. But it must happen selectively and with restraint.

We believe in the power of the market. But we also know that in war, one must be able to make certain decisions quickly and collectively. Therefore, a balance is required, and it is precisely this balance that we seek in our policy.

Swedish defense capability is increasingly based on advanced technology. It is not just weapons and vehicles; it is AI, cybersecurity, communication, and sensor systems. To manage this, we must invest in our competence and in our capacity for innovation.

The Moderates and the government want to see increased investments in FOI and other research actors. But we also want to strengthen the link between civil technology clusters and the defense sector so that innovations arising within, for example, the Swedish space industry, 5G, or semiconductor technology can also contribute to our military defense.

We also want to see more educational initiatives in technical colleges, in vocational training, and within the Armed Forces to meet the industry's growing need for qualified labor. Here, the state, the industry, and academia must work more closely together.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's defense industry is export-dependent. That is no secret. But it is also a fact we must handle responsibly. Arms exports must take place under strict control – and they do, through ISP and the relevant legislation. But we simultaneously say no to overly extensive export restrictions that lack a grounding in reality. If we stifle the export opportunities, we will in the long run also weaken our own defense capability. The companies need access to international markets in order to be able to grow, invest, and develop new systems which in turn can also be used in the defense of Sweden.

With a Swedish membership in Nato, the conditions change. We become part of a larger security community, where cooperation and interoperability are absolutely crucial.

The Moderates welcome this. We want to see increased co-production, joint development projects and better coordination of logistics and warehousing, both within the Nordic countries, within the EU and within Nato. But we must not lose Swedish self-determination. Our defense industry must continue to be able to act based on Swedish needs and not just in line with others' priorities. We must have the ability to take responsibility for our own supply readiness. It is a fundamental pillar of the total defense.

Mr. Speaker! Environmental and climate aspects should not be a special interest. They should be an integrated part of all state policy, even in the defense sector.

The defense industry has the opportunity to lead by developing more energy-efficient systems, reducing its climate impact, and taking responsibility for its resource use. But this must happen without compromising functionality or security of supply. It is entirely possible to combine technological edge with environmental sustainability, and we urge the industry to do just that.

Building a credible defense capability is about much more than budget items. It is about long-term planning, national unity, and concrete implementation. It is about the fact that, when it really matters, we must be able to trust that the defense functions – that the equipment is there, that the competence exists, and that the supply chains hold.

For the Moderates, this is not just a question of security. It is a question of independence – of Sweden being able to make its own decisions and having the power to stand up for them.

We stand behind the strategy, and we are prepared to ensure that it becomes a reality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Lars Püss! I fully agree with much of what you said. We probably have a fairly broad consensus when it comes to the defense industry and other matters.

There is one point I do not agree with. It concerns ownership when it comes to the defense industry. I think you partially elaborated on this, but I am still not quite satisfied with the Moderaternas motives for why we should not have any state ownership or influence here.

Both Lars Püss and I have been active in municipal politics and remember that when the so-called golden peace occurred, it was believed that there was a shelf to buy equipment and other things from. The Swedish defense industry had to transition very much. It was actually only the international market that existed, and that also shrank very much.

What is also important is that this is not a deregulated market. The market for defense materiel is not like any other market. It is incredibly state-controlled both when it comes to procurement, when it comes to export, and when it comes to other parts. It is almost always, I would venture to say, state decisions and state funding that lie behind the purchases.

My question to Lars is: Based on the discussion I am now having, is the view of the Moderaterna still so rock-solid that there is no opening to still be able to find an opportunity for state influence in this part? It is not about governing, but still being involved and being able to have control over the operations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Püss (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Andersson for the question. If I am to answer briefly and concisely, the answer is no. But I can elaborate a little for the sake of order.

I believe that free enterprise will outperform state enterprise even in this area. I understand what you are after. If one looks at our neighboring countries – France is a prominent example – certain parts are private, but most is state-owned. It can be a security in some situations, but I would argue that it is a false security. I believe that our industry would function significantly better if it were to operate under the same conditions as everyone else.

What we need to do from the state's side is to be clear and give the industry the conditions to actually function. We need to be clear in how we order, and we need to give long-term contracts. We need to give guarantees where we perhaps do not have the possibility to make orders ourselves, but at the current time, there is a large international interest. It is therefore a matter of adapting to the situation.

I do not believe in state ownership in the defense industry, but I believe that we must become significantly better as customers and integrate the industry in a significantly better way into the total defense.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I could agree with Lars Püss if it were the case that it is a question of a completely deregulated market, but in this case, it is not so. It is not nearly so in that part.

I consider this to be a fundamental activity for Sweden in many respects. Then, I shall not compare with other sectors, but that is how it is. There is a high level of expertise. There are products in demand, and most likely they will be in demand for a long time to come – even though we naturally hope that the global situation will change for the better. But there is cutting-edge competence worth protecting.

I agree on the issue of long-term contracts. They must exist in order to be able to provide guarantees. The decommissioning shows how quickly competence and other things disappear. The countries in our vicinity that have a defense industry in whole or partial state ownership have found it easier to start production.

My follow-up question is more linked to cooperation with other countries. Both Lars Püss and I are active in the Nordic Council, and we have close contacts with our comrades in the Nordic countries. There, we Social Democrats see an opportunity for even more cooperation with our neighboring countries when it comes to the defense industry. Today, we have a defense cooperation in various ways, but does Lars Püss also see an opportunity to develop cooperation in the defense industrial area?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Püss (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Andersson for the follow-up question.

We are in agreement regarding the need to cooperate more, primarily with our Nordic neighbors. Secondly, we should include the Baltics. We have a cooperation within the EU and, of course, now within Nato, and I think it is a self-evident matter that we should strengthen that cooperation.

It is in our interest to start looking at the Nordic countries because they are our closest neighbors. If we can cooperate with them, we have more to gain than if we cooperate with someone who is far away. It does not preclude the possibility of cooperating with those who are far away, but for our own security's sake, it is more interesting to cooperate with Finland, Norway and Denmark than with others.

This also lies in our interest regarding the Baltics. It is something that we have talked about a lot in the Nordic Council, namely that it is in our interest to the highest degree that their defense capability is as strong as it can possibly be because it benefits us to the highest degree.

I would have liked to see significantly more. I don't remember exactly which Nordic countries were included in this round, but regarding the CV90, we see a clear trend. I spoke with Hans Wallmark, our ambassador to Denmark, who stated that Denmark has shown a significantly increased interest in defense cooperation at all levels. There is a large common view on the area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker and honorable members! And hello to all of you who are sitting and watching and listening at home!

Today we are debating the government's defense industry strategy – the first of its kind. I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that the defense industry has not stood very high on the Left Party's agenda previously. Business and corporate policy is something that I know very little about.

But in recent years, since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the defense industry has of course moved very much into the center. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is contrary to international law, a humanitarian catastrophe for the Ukrainian population, and an attack against peace in Europe.

It is thanks to the industry, the companies, the research and development that we within the Swedish defense industry have been able to contribute so much to Ukraine's fight against the Russian invasion. For that, I would like to extend a big thank you to everyone involved, both within the industry and among the authorities that work with the strategic planning and enable the equipment to arrive.

The possibility of producing our own defense materiel and the supply of raw materials for production is an important foundation for our own defense capability and our entire total defense. We shall not be dependent on companies in other countries.

The Swedish defense industry consists of both small and large companies, companies with a long history and completely new innovative companies. It is important that we take into account all these different conditions for different types of operations.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank all the companies where I have been given study visits in recent years and for all the discussions we have had. It is incredibly appreciated by us politicians to be able to come on visits and be able to ask questions, stupid or not, and to be taught how everything works. I have learned incredibly much from the study visits I have made within the Swedish defense industry.

Mr. Speaker! Let me move on to the matter.

Vänsterpartiet thinks it is good that the government has developed a defense industry strategy and that the content is also good in large parts. Above all, the focus on long-term orders, contracts, and planning gives the defense industry greater opportunities to secure raw materials, expand, and hire personnel. It also means that we can hopefully get better prices and can secure what we need for the Swedish Armed Forces so that we know we have materiel when we need it.

Vänsterpartiet believes, however, that a robust and resilient society requires public control over socially important activities. This must include the defense industry.

The Swedish defense industry is private today. Many of the companies have a long history, and they were started as small companies in smaller locations and have then grown into what they are today. Given the defense industry's very great importance for Sweden's defense and security, and right now also Ukraine's defense and security, and the close cooperation that the industry has with the state, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that greater state ownership and influence is needed – and it should be investigated. Such ownership and influence can look in many different ways. I can reassure everyone; it is not about a nationalization. But it is about securing production in Sweden of what the Försvarsmakten needs.

Mr. Speaker! There are some things that we nevertheless lack in the strategy and which we think should have been included. Since this is the first time the strategy is being developed, we see this as an input for future updates. One such thing is the supply of personnel and competence. Personnel is, of course, the basis for being able to produce, and furthermore, the defense industry needs personnel with extensive knowledge. In many ways, it is a craft to work within parts of the defense industry. Good education is needed, even for adults who want to retrain for a new profession, and close contacts between the educations and the business sector are required.

Being able to recruit is crucial for the entire total defense and the great growth we are now seeing. In that context, I also want to point out that the necessary security screenings need to be a bit faster and a bit smoother.

We also lack a discussion on functioning public services in smaller localities and throughout the country. It concerns infrastructure, energy supply, housing, and welfare. Many of the important companies within the defense industry are located in smaller localities, often small industrial towns, which are characterized by industry and production. In some localities, the defense company may even be the town's dominant industry and has been for a long time.

Sweden has for decades pursued a centralized policy that has not taken into account the needs of the entire country. Today, many municipalities and regions struggle with limited resources to be able to offer their residents good living conditions. This naturally affects the possibility of recruiting staff.

The deficiencies in the infrastructure also affect the industry. In order for deliveries to be able to be received and sent out, one needs to be able to rely on the transports, especially on the railway, functioning. A large part of the defense materiel is heavy and bulky. In such cases, the railway is the best way to transport. We know and see that the railway suffers from poor maintenance and a very large maintenance debt, which results in both errors and interruptions. It naturally affects the business sector and the industry and their deliveries.

Finally, I want to add that we lack some writings on the environment and climate. If we are to have a country and a world that is safe and secure, it is required that we take decisive action against climate change and environmental destruction. We know that many conflicts around the world are due to climate change leading to competition for resources and therefore want to raise a warning finger. We need to simplify and speed up environmental processes. The environmental requirements exist for a reason: to protect our drinking water, our clean air, and biodiversity. All of that is needed for our survival.

To this, I want to emphasize the need for public support and dialogue between the industry, the Armed Forces, and the local residents. Dialogue is crucial to reduce the negative effects that exercise and testing nevertheless have for those who live nearby.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a country with high ambitions in the international work for a sustainable, peaceful and democratic development. Sweden must therefore truly stop the export of weapons to dictatorships, states that wage wars of aggression and regimes that commit crimes against human rights.

There is also a great responsibility on the individual companies to themselves make an initial assessment of which customers they should have and whether they are acceptable from a democratic and international law perspective. It is therefore valuable that the government has included a reasoning in the strategy regarding good business ethics and zero tolerance towards corruption.

Vänsterpartiet also argues that Sweden needs to be able to control the import of defense materiel and needs legislation regarding just that import. Today, extensive imports of war materiel from Israel are taking place while a war and a genocide are ongoing in Gaza. The Armed Forces have also concluded a billion-kronor deal with the Israeli weapons industry. Most recently this autumn, a purchase of a sea-target missile was made.

Vänsterpartiet argues that Sweden must immediately cease purchasing weapons from Israel. This applies to all arms trade with Israel. Vänsterpartiet therefore argues that legislation on arms imports is needed, just as we have for arms exports.

Mr. Speaker! I would like, on this occasion, to move for approval of two reservations: reservation 3, regarding state ownership, and reservation 12, regarding arms imports.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report 3 Defence Industry Strategy for a stronger Sweden – innovation, production and cooperation.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report in its entirety and against all reservations.

The debate and discussion we have today takes place in a special situation. We have a significantly worsened security policy situation, and a war has now been ongoing in Ukraine for three and a half years. The committee recently had a visit from Ukraine's new ambassador to Sweden. She reminded us of something that is also worth reminding here: Sweden may not have played a leading role, but we have played a very important role in helping Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that we have an agreement on this, on standing together. We understand that the war that Ukraine faces does not only concern them, but it is also our war. We know that at its core it is about Russia wanting to re-establish some kind of fallen empire, and there are several territories in our vicinity that could be at stake. Therefore, it is morally right to stand up for Ukraine. But it is also about our own, the Swedish people's, security. We have every reason to continue with that support.

The war, which has now been ongoing for three and a half years, has also led to NATO now rearming. We have a capability goal, which Sweden has also received. Therefore, we are making substantial investments. It is about increasing the percentage share of GDP. We have been around 1 percent. Step by step, we have reached just over 2 percent. Now we are to go up to 3.5 percent by 2030. We will also invest 1.5 percent in civil defense.

This is completely necessary to have a strong defense that deters. It is precisely about having a capability, Mr. Speaker. The language that Russia understands is not words, but it is to have military capability. That is when the chances increase that there will never be any war. But if one can just glide into Sweden or one of our neighboring countries, the sense of adventure increases. Therefore, it is important, also considering that it could get worse.

Both the Swedish security service, Must, and the Danish security service have warned that there could be a regional war within a couple of years or a major war in five years. We therefore do not have all the time in the world. It is a matter of speeding up.

When it comes to the defense industry, which is what this is about, we have a proud history. During the Cold War, a strong defense industry was built up. If we compare ourselves with other countries, we are actually unique, given that we have Archer, which the ambassador from Ukraine notably praised, Stridsfordon 90, Jas Gripen, sensor technology and radar technology. We also have companies such as Volvo and Scania, which contribute in different ways, and many others.

But this is also important for the future, for our security and for our area and surrounding area. The strategy is fundamentally based on the fact that what we have now and which we should be proud of, which produces so many important products for our security, shall grow. There is a need, in Sweden but also in the rest of the world.

That is why it is important, as several have pointed out, that there are long-term purchase orders. It cannot be a matter of short-sightedness. This applies in particular to what has been highlighted in the capability goals for the entire Nato: a severe shortage of ammunition. As I pointed out, we therefore need to improve and accelerate production in our own country.

We have large companies, such as BAE Systems, Saab and others, but also a long row of small and medium-sized defense companies. The Defense Committee was recently visited by SOFF, whom we have met in various contexts. We can do more to adapt, so that these companies can grow. It is about compensation and ensuring that we have systems that are adapted so that even the small and medium-sized companies can grow.

In this entire strategy, it is also about the understanding of the importance of the business sector. It is part of our security, and it has always been so. But now we emphasize in this strategy that we want to join forces and in that way ensure that we together in Nato, with our defense industry and with the military investments we make, increase the safety and security for us and our surrounding world.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We live in turbulent times with the worst security policy situation since the end of the Second World War. Investing in total defense and everything it entails is extremely important to safeguard our democracy, the principles of the rule of law, human rights, freedom of expression, and everyone's right to live as they wish.

Mr. Speaker! In order to strengthen Sweden's and NATO's defense capability, our Swedish defense industry is extremely important. The Swedish defense industry has a key role in strengthening Sweden's total defense. Throughout Sweden where the defense industry is located, it naturally contributes to strengthening the local, but it simultaneously operates in the global.

As we now live in these difficult times, the public sector needs to provide the right conditions and facilitate so that the defense industry can increase production and capacity. But to manage an increase within the defense industry, more than final production is required. It can be about long-term contracts, skills supply, and access to various materials and components for final production, but also about, for example, shortening the processes for environmental permits so that testing can be conducted in a simpler and more efficient way. Bureaucracy and long processes must not cause development within the industry to stall, and we hope that the strategy will counteract this and ensure that we get answers to a good deal of the questions.

Mr. Speaker! Continuing to support Ukraine is one of the most important issues for Sweden, the EU, and NATO. The Swedish defense industry has a key role in supporting Ukraine. Several initiatives have been taken by politics and the defense industry, and it is important to highlight them and ensure that they are implemented. Ukraine's cause is truly our own.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party views the strategy that the government has developed and submitted to the Riksdag via this communication generally positively. It is, however, important that the communication also leads to concrete action. With the current security situation, Sweden cannot afford to let a defense strategy become a shelf-warmer.

Therefore, the Centre Party considers it necessary to follow up on the implementation of the strategy continuously with the scope and thoroughness that a report to the Riksdag could enable. Through such a follow-up, it also becomes possible to strive for long-term goals in a better way, while necessary updates can be made during the time the strategy is being implemented. The Centre Party's proposal is therefore that the measures be reported in an annual report to the Riksdag where the government can specify what has been achieved and what concrete measures have been taken.

Mr. Speaker! When I visit the defense industry companies, I am struck by the pride, the forward-looking spirit, and the great innovation and development potential that exists. This applies to both the large and the smaller companies and perhaps also the subcontractors to the defense industry that are spread out all over our country.

The Swedish defense industry will be needed today, tomorrow, and in the future. Therefore, it is important to work more, better, and more clearly with follow-up and evaluation, as the Center Party emphasizes in its reservation together with the Social Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I move for approval of reservation number 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we stand in this chamber, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has just landed on Swedish soil. He is not here on a pleasure trip but because we find ourselves in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. Europe is burning again with war. We face a time when the threats to our freedom, our democracy, and our open society are no longer theoretical. They are real and affect us all, even here at home.

Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has shown what happens when one underestimates evil or believes that diplomacy alone can tame a despot who does not understand the language of diplomacy. Therefore, Sweden must build up its own defense capability and its own industrial strength. Our membership in Nato is both historical and real. But it replaces neither our own responsibility nor our own defense capability. A credible ally must also be self-sufficient. The time when we could hitch a ride at the expense of other countries is over. Now it is required that even we, as a Nato land, contribute to deterrence.

That is where the defense industry comes in, Mr. Speaker. The defense industry is not just companies, machines, and factories. It is part of Sweden's security policy backbone – where innovative power meets our need for protection, where researchers, engineers, and technicians convert Swedish knowledge into concrete defense capability. But for us to succeed, we must stop viewing the defense industry through ideological blinkers and instead speak plainly about what it means to defend a country in a time of war in our own immediate vicinity.

For us Liberals, the defense industry is not a necessary evil. On the contrary, it is part of the solution to preserve peace, freedom, and democracy. It is by being able to deliver ammunition, vehicles, systems, and technology both to our own forces and to our allies that we build a credible security policy and create trust in our own capabilities.

The Liberals naturally stand behind the defense industry strategy. It is about three things that go straight to our liberal core: innovation, production, and cooperation. Innovation is needed because technology must keep pace with the threats. We want to see faster processes, fewer hurdles, and more test environments where new solutions can reach our units in time. Production is needed so that we can manufacture the materiel required in crisis and war. This requires multi-year orders, risk-sharing between the state and industry, and a focus on strategic materiel areas such as ammunition, command systems, and underwater capability. Cooperation is needed so that Sweden can be a reliable and strong partner in Nato, in the Nordic region, and in the EU. It is about our ability to contribute to the alliance's industrial base while simultaneously standing firmly on our own feet.

Mr. Speaker! The defense industry strategy is an important first step. But we Liberals also see the need for the next step. It is about removing bureaucratic hurdles and opening up the defense sector for more actors. Sweden has a strong innovative power in small and medium-sized technology companies within AI, cybersecurity, and autonomous systems. Therefore, these companies must be given a clearer path into the defense industry. If we let in their expertise, we also strengthen our national capability and the competitiveness of Swedish industry on the global market.

Mr. Speaker! In order for all of this to be achieved, political leadership is naturally required. But in this debate, there are certain elements that are somewhat worrying.

The opposition's proposals are fragmented. Unfortunately, I must say. I have been so proud that we have been able to agree on the direction of the defense and the total consensus that prevails regarding Ukraine. But one hears somewhat different approaches regarding the defense industry strategy.

When the Social Democrats stand in the speaker's chair and say one thing, slightly different things are said to the left of the Social Democrats. It is clearly worrying. It could become difficult for a future Social Democratic government to be able to gather a strong defense industry policy when its cooperation partners sometimes question Nato, even though they have accepted the membership, the exports, and also the existence of the industry.

It is not just a theoretical question. It is a question of credibility towards our allies, our Swedish defense industry companies, but above all towards our Swedish soldiers who rely on the fact that the politics also delivers in terms of accountability.

Sweden cannot afford division when the threats are growing. We cannot afford naivety when shells are falling over Ukraine. We definitely cannot afford a security policy based on dreams of disarmament while the rest of the world is rearming at a rapid pace.

The Liberals stand for sober responsibility and a realistic perspective. We know that peace is not maintained with words but with capability. We know that innovation and technology are not enemies of ethics but prerequisites for us to be able to strengthen our own capabilities. A country that cannot defend itself cannot defend its values. It is that simple.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude with the following. Sweden is today a free country, thank goodness, but freedom is not free. It is defended every day in our forces, in our factories, in our research labs, and in the decisions that we make here in the chamber.

We must build a defense and a defense industry that can withstand war, crisis, and cooperation. It requires political courage, unity, and that we let go of the naivety that we are still living under eternal peace.

Putin does not understand tones of conversation. He only understands strength, threats, and aggression. What Sweden needs is strength, both for our own security, for credibility among our allies, and for Ukraine's sake.

I wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all of the opposition's motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that I welcome that the government has presented a strategy for the defense industry which we have to debate and decide on today. I think it is important that there is an openness surrounding the defense industry, not least in these times when a necessary upgrade is taking place, so that we can obtain a unified strategy for the role of the business sector and industry as a security policy instrument.

We must not forget that the defense industry operates under special circumstances where the state's security policy considerations influence the industry's direction. We share the government's objective that Sweden should have a robust defense capability and a long-term sustainable supply of defense materiel. At the same time, we believe that the strategy should be complemented and nuanced.

I would like to particularly emphasize three areas:

The importance of Swedish arms exports always meeting high democratic criteria.

The significance of Swedish control over critical defense materiel production.

The defense industry's impact on climate and the environment.

Regarding the importance of Swedish arms exports living up to high democratic criteria, the government emphasizes that Sweden shall be a credible and reliable ally and partner. I think that is good.

It is also important that Swedish arms exports always live up to high democratic criteria. Respect for human rights and the receiving state's democratic status constitute central conditions in the assessment of permits to export weapons. The poorer the democratic status is, the less room there is for permits to be granted.

If there are serious violations of human rights or grave deficiencies in the democratic status, Miljöpartiet believes that it should be an obstacle to granting permits for the export of weapons and any subsequent deliveries.

Mr. Speaker! In order for the defense industry strategy to be credible and ethically anchored, I believe that this principle needs to be emphasized and fully complied with in all export activities. The current legislation leaves too much room for interpretation, which means that exports are permitted to countries that reasonably should fall under the above-mentioned definitions, for example Turkey and Thailand.

The Green Party therefore wants to see a strict ban on arms exports to dictatorships, countries at war, or countries where serious and extensive violations of human rights occur, including follow-on deliveries. This should, however, not prevent Sweden from being able to provide weapons in solidarity to an attacked country, which has become relevant after Russia's full-scale and illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The government now seems to want to tinker with the regulations regarding which Swedish weapons are exported and has appointed an inquiry to review the regulations to evaluate the regulations, governance, and forms of state export support. I hope that this will not lead to worsened criteria and loopholes for Swedish arms exports.

Mr. Speaker! The second area in this report that is important for us is to have strong domestic control over the production of defense materiel that is strategically important for Sweden's security. The Government has, at the proposal of the Defence Preparedness Board, defined certain defense technology areas as strategic materiel areas. It is of the utmost importance that Sweden has control over the production within these key areas.

The Government emphasizes that the long-term supply perspective within the strategic material areas presupposes a strategic partnership between the state and the business sector in order for the defense industrial capability to meet Sweden's needs over time. We share this analysis, but believe there is reason for Sweden to go further.

To maintain national readiness, it is required that the state takes an active responsibility for the defense industry's development. In a time when the defense industry is expanding rapidly and the ownership structures of companies are changing, we must ensure that strategic companies remain in line with Swedish security interests.

Miljöpartiet considers that direct state ownership or partial ownership in companies that handle strategic material areas could be an effective tool precisely for this.

Through state ownership engagement, Sweden can gain influence over decisions concerning, for example, the companies' direction or ownership structure. Public ownership in this area would also facilitate a steering of the operations towards long-term security policy goals, rather than short-term profit maximization. Defense materiel is not just any market. Society's interest in secure delivery and sovereignty weighs heavier than business motives in these contexts.

Mr. Speaker! It is also worth noting that Sweden's current state commitment in the defense industry is relatively small compared to many other countries. The situation in several European countries shows that they often take a greater responsibility, for example through direct ownership, to secure national supply capacity in the event of crisis and war.

By the state taking a more active ownership role, we can better ensure that the industry serves the country's security above anything else. I therefore believe that the government should develop proposals on how public ownership and influence in strategic defense matters can be strengthened.

This would support the goal of a secured material supply and contribute to ensuring that the defense industry strategy for a stronger Sweden actually results in a stronger and safer Sweden under national control.

Mr. Speaker! The third area that I intended to raise in this debate is the defense industry's impact on climate and environment. In the Defense Committee's report Allvarstid from 2023, it was established that climate change is both a serious and long-term threat to Sweden, which also affects the buildup of the defense. I therefore mean that the defense industry's climate impact and environmental risks must be given more attention in the defense industry strategy. The necessary upgrading and increased defense production must not occur at the expense of the environment or hinder the opportunities for Sweden to reach our climate goals.

The government emphasizes in the strategy that simple regulations and fast permit processes create the conditions for a rapid increase in defense industrial production. Fast permit processes are, of course, preferable in themselves. The issue of more efficient permit processes is absolutely necessary in order to be able to achieve a rapid climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! However, it must not happen by having Sweden's completely necessary environmental requirements eroded or by having requirements to seek permits abolished. A high environmental standard and a sustainable use of resources must also apply in the defense sector. Ensuring that the defense industry's development occurs in line with climate and environmental goals strengthens both our long-term security and our credibility as a leading country in the transition to a sustainable society.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservations 4 and 13.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Göran Hargestam (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating 2025/26:FöU3 Defense Industry Strategy for a stronger Sweden. I wish to vote in favor of the Defense Committee's proposal for a decision.

Sweden is arming, not because we want to but because we must. The security situation in Europe is the most serious since World War II. Russia's brutal attack on Ukraine reminds us every day that freedom is never free. Therefore, we are now building a stronger total defense – military, civil, and industrial.

The defense industry strategy that we are now debating is a central part of that work. It focuses on three things: that we must become faster in innovation, stronger in production, and better at cooperation. But, Mr. Speaker, for this strategy to work in reality, we must also provide our defense industry with the right conditions, and here I want to place special emphasis on an area that has for too long hindered development, namely our permit processes.

Today, it sometimes takes several years to obtain permits to expand production facilities, store explosives, or expand testing activities, even though everyone knows that the needs are urgent. In the meantime, we wait for ammunition, components, and spare parts that should be in production. We risk having a gap in the near future between the defense's needs and the industry's ability to deliver.

It is unsustainable, Mr. Speaker, and therefore it is gratifying that the strategy is clear that rules and permit processes must be simplified, and we will move from words to action.

We are to introduce fast tracks for activities that are crucial for Sweden's security of supply. When it comes to the defense of our country, the projects must not get stuck in year-long processing.

We will coordinate the authorities better. Defense companies should not have to navigate between several different instances. A unified contact point, a one-stop-shop, at FMV will be established.

Shorter processing times and parallel assessments shall become the norm. Environmental assessment, building permits, and security protection shall be handled simultaneously, not sequentially.

Regulations must be predictable and proportionate, Mr. Speaker. We must have high requirements for safety and the environment, but it must not become bureaucratic hurdles that stop critical production.

Mr. Speaker! Simplified permit processes are not a shortcut but a necessity for Sweden to be able to supply its defense, support Ukraine and contribute to NATO's collective strength.

But it is about more than just permits. For the defense industry to be able to grow, long-term perspective and access to capital are also needed. Therefore, it is good that the strategy states that we shall give multi-year orders that create predictability, that we shall strengthen risk-sharing for investments in new production capacity, and that we shall increase the dialogue with the financial sector so that Swedish banks and pension funds see the defense industry for what it is, namely a part of our democratic sustainability.

It is also important with measures for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of Swedish innovation. FMV's mission to lower the thresholds for new actors, simplify procurements, and facilitate testing activities creates better conditions. Defense technology can just as easily emerge in a small workshop in Småland as in a large corporation in Linköping.

Mr. Speaker! An important part is to strengthen the link between civil and military innovation. The doubled investment in the civil-military innovation program, from 60 to 120 million kronor, is well-invested money. There, Swedish tech companies, researchers, and defense authorities meet to solve common problems. That is how we build a modern defense – with the competence of the entire society.

Finally, we have cooperation. Sweden is now a part of Nato but also a strong industrial nation in Europe. We shall contribute to Nato's supply chains, drive joint materiel development within the EU and deepen cooperation within the Nordic region. It strengthens both our own and our allies' security.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has today companies that deliver world-leading technology, from Gripen and submarines to advanced sensors and cyber defense. It is an asset for our country and for the entire free world. But we cannot take this for granted. The state must be a clear, fast, and reliable partner.

The defense industry strategy shows the way. It is not just a plan but also a commitment – a commitment to tear down barriers, speed up permits, provide stable conditions and ensure that the Swedish defense industry continues to be a cornerstone of our security, our economy and our freedom.

A stronger Sweden requires a strong defense industry, and we shall provide it with the best possible conditions.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)