Response to interpellation 2023/24:179 on the industry's innovative power
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government is making necessary economic prioritizations to manage inflation and security 1. KD believes that by narrowing down and prioritizing strategically important areas such as 6G, advanced digitalization, and defense research, they strengthen Swedish innovative power and competitiveness 1 2. KD emphasizes that emission-free electricity and a robust energy policy are crucial for innovative capacity 3. KD believes that a good strategy has been found to prioritize the core while still finding forward momentum 2. KD agrees that Sweden cannot lean back on historical successes 4. S argues that the government's cuts to Vinnova harm the work with AI, digitalization, and small businesses 5. S believes that Sweden is falling behind neighboring countries and demands an offensive innovation strategy as well as higher appropriations 5 6. S believes that the government must raise the level of ambition and increase investments in research and innovation so that Sweden can lead the green transition 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Aida Birinxhiku has asked me what reasons underlie the government's and my decision to reduce the appropriations to Vinnova in the budget bill, what reasons underlie my and the government's decision not to work out a national innovation strategy, what consequences I believe these decisions have for Swedish industry's innovative power, and whether I intend to take any actions based on my conclusions.
I share the interpellator's view that international competition is intensifying. This applies in particular to knowledge-intensive goods and services, including in areas that are necessary for the green and digital transition. Large countries such as the USA and China are increasing their investments in research, innovation, and development. In that situation, Sweden, as a small country that cannot compete with the large countries' investments in absolute terms, needs to be smart and dare to prioritize the areas that will be central to the industry's competitiveness and our resilience and transition capacity for the future.
The government has a close dialogue with the business community on these issues, in several different forums, precisely because the government is keen to strengthen innovation and competitiveness. The industrial talks are one such forum, where at the meeting last, on 7 November 2023, we discussed proposals and input to the upcoming research and innovation policy bill.
In addition to excellence and internationalization, it is precisely innovation that is in focus for the government's research and innovation policy. This is a clear sign that the government takes the issue of innovation very seriously.
When it comes to Vinnova's grants, the government has had to make tough economic prioritizations to manage, among other things, inflation, gang crime, and the security policy situation.
The Government proposes an investment in next-generation wireless systems, 6G, in the budget bill for 2024. Previously, the Government has tasked Vinnova with increasing the efforts in the research and innovation program Advanced Digitalization. The Government has also tasked Vinnova with establishing an innovation cluster for the commercialization of advanced pharmaceuticals. The Government has prioritized these investments to contribute to Swedish innovative strength. With these investments, we have shown that we are investing in long-term competitiveness and growth.
I fully understand that there are questions as to whether this implies a lowered level of ambition from the government regarding innovation and need-based research. That is not the case. The government also proposes a strengthening of research and technological development within the defense area in the budget bill for 2024. The government proposes increased resources for a military innovation program and expanded research within the defense area to strengthen Sweden's opportunities to meet future threats, which also contributes to strengthening Swedish competitiveness and the industry's innovative power.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to draw a clear line between civil research and defense research, not least when it comes to breakthrough technology. Consequently, there is also great potential in strengthening synergies and cooperation benefits between civil and militarily funded research, innovation, and technological development. The state-funded defense research, which primarily consists of applied research, has large spillover effects to other areas.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! As a leading innovation country, Sweden has a unique opportunity to lead the green transition, which leads to reduced emissions, new jobs, and increased prosperity throughout the country.
The Minister and I seem to agree that global competition is intensifying and that we must strengthen Swedish innovative power. But in practice, the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing the opposite. In the budget bill, the government chooses to significantly reduce the appropriations to Vinnova over the coming years, and I assume the Minister has taken part of Vinnova's impact analysis of the latest budget bill. It clearly states there that the government's cuts will have significant consequences for, among other things, the work with AI and digitalization, the support for small and medium-sized innovative companies, and also well-functioning projects within the production area. The investments within 6G and the civil and military defense are welcome, but they cannot compensate for these cuts, and the Minister knows that very well.
The Minister states that she wants to strengthen Swedish innovative power. She also states that she wants Sweden to continue to be a leading innovation country. But the problem is that this does not seem to have gained traction in the government's budget. Instead of meeting other countries' more offensive initiatives on research and innovation, the government is going in the exact opposite direction. It is highly alarming in a time when Sweden is expected to have the lowest growth in the entire EU and risks falling behind in the global competition.
We Social Democrats naturally reject the government's cuts and propose in our budget motion 175 million kronor more for the research and innovation grant than the government does.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have also proposed that the government should develop an offensive innovation strategy to ensure that Sweden does not fall behind. I must say that I find it somewhat remarkable that the government parties initially stood behind the question of a national intellectual property or innovation strategy in Sweden. But then, when the Minister and I debated the issue in June, the Minister said "maybe" to such a strategy. And when we debated these issues last, in October, it was no longer a maybe but a no.
Why does the government not want to produce an innovation strategy when it is requested by the business community, research funders, and now also the OECD? It is welcome that the government is working on producing several important strategies, but why then not a strategy that specifically targets Swedish innovative power and which can also gather broad parliamentary support?
Madam Speaker! I can only state that innovation strategies are being developed in country after country and that other countries' investments in research and innovation are becoming increasingly offensive. But that is not happening in Sweden. Here, the government chooses to prioritize differently. Therefore, I want to ask Minister Ebba Busch what she believes these will have for consequences for the industry's innovative power.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! "Tant" took the opportunity to rest between the rounds of interpellations here. One has to stretch out the energy like this before Christmas. "Tant" is, therefore, myself and not anyone else here in the chamber, I want to emphasize for the audience.
As I understand it, the government and S reach the same conclusion, that it is possible to cut back a bit on Vinnova. But Member Aida Birinxhiku probably knows the S budget better than I do. But I perceive that even in their budget alternative, a reduction occurs. Then the question is: Are we perhaps still making the same analysis fundamentally, that it is possible to streamline something? In difficult times, everyone needs to do it, even Vinnova.
I mean that Sweden's competitiveness and innovation capacity will be improved, largely due to one of our primary competitive advantages, namely – lo and behold – our previous energy policy. It is this that we are now trying to safeguard.
We are a small, export-dependent country in the northernmost part of Europe. I would say that there are some ingredients that have been crucial for us to have succeeded over 150 years in taking Sweden from a fundamentally quite poor country with large out-migration – many chose to emigrate from Sweden – to a country that now attracts talents from all over the world.
One of the ingredients is that we are a very curious people with a good work ethic and a work ethic that is important to safeguard. There are certain basic common values among us there. This, in turn, has been able to lead to our capacity for innovation. We have sought new solutions in difficult times.
Another ingredient is actually that we have had a relatively good amount of relatively emission-free electricity at competitive prices. This has made it so that many have chosen Sweden despite that in some cases we have been a bit more disadvantageously positioned and also had better working conditions, which has given us more expensive labor. Regarding the working conditions, we have fought for them and thought they were right and just.
Now we are working on building the Swedish energy system robust and strong again, so that this can continue to be one of our major competitive advantages moving forward. In addition to this, we are developing a number of strategies, for example a new mineral strategy. We are currently working on an FOI-proposition.
Let me return briefly to the member's previous question regarding openness for an innovation strategy: I am open to it, but the bandwidth is what it is, and we have a very large amount of work that bears on the innovation area. I would very much like the government to be allowed to launch this first. Then we can see what might need to be supplemented in a potential specific program for pure innovation issues that are not covered in the reviews or additions that we are now making in already previously announced strategies.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Both the Minister and I have stated here that Sweden has long been a leading innovation country. It is the result of a clear political direction.
In the government position, we Social Democrats have launched strategies with a clear focus on innovation. We have developed strategic innovation programs, and we have also increased the basic funding for research and innovation. But we need to do much more, not least in the area of intellectual property rights. We need to become even better at increasing knowledge on how innovations can be protected. We need to invest research funds more effectively and ensure that our innovations can be commercialized to a greater extent.
Therefore, we want the government to develop an offensive innovation strategy to ensure that Sweden does not fall behind.
As I understand it, according to the government, the innovation issues will be incorporated into the strategies that are currently being developed. We will, of course, ensure that this happens and continue to monitor the issue, not least when it comes to the intangible assets, which must not be forgotten. This also applies to the work on the upcoming research and innovation bill. We Social Democrats want to see a strategic and ambitious direction for the innovation work when the bill is presented in 2024.
Madam Speaker! Sweden is starting to fall behind. Our innovative power is in clear decline compared to previous years, especially if we compare it with our neighboring countries Denmark and Finland, which have had a significantly stronger development.
In Finland, it became clear that when the public sector withdrew, investments and initiatives from the private sector also disappeared. Therefore, it has now been legislated that the state's innovation initiatives shall amount to a corresponding 1.2 percent of GDP in 2030. There, they have also, in broad parliamentary agreement, formulated a very ambitious innovation policy.
The EU also drives an ambitious innovation agenda, but to participate in these initiatives, significant national co-financing is required. Therefore, Sweden's international competitiveness is at stake if the government is not ready to increase the innovation initiatives.
Madam Speaker! Vinnova is an important part of ensuring that the business sector places its research and development in Sweden, but the government's cuts are putting a spoke in the wheel of that work. The investments, which the Minister mentioned initially, concerning defense are welcome. But they are completely overshadowed by the general reduction. We are not even talking about the same sums here, and the Minister knows that.
This cannot compensate for the cuts that await when it comes to the industry's innovative power, for example when it concerns the support for the management of intellectual property, as I mentioned earlier. That is why the government's cuts have met with strong criticism, not least from the business community.
There is great concern that Sweden is now falling behind in the modern knowledge economy. And that the Minister does not seem to share that concern is alarming in itself.
Is this the consequence analysis the Minister is making – that reduced ambitions and appropriations will not negatively affect the industry's innovative power?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! The short answer is that it will be a reprioritization. That is how it is. The Government directs Vinnova so that they invest more in strategically important research. It is about our ability to narrow down. What is to be our unique selling point – to directly translate the English USP, unique selling point – vis-à-vis the other Nordic countries and other countries where we have our primary competition? It is about where we have the opportunity to complement and, together with others in, for example, the Nordic cluster, become an even stronger competing party internationally.
At the same time – I still want to repeat the figures – we propose a total of 405 million kronor for research and innovation linked to 6G over the coming years. We are ramping up the work with advanced digitalization. And we continue to prioritize such as innovation clusters for gene therapy, which I visited earlier this spring, programs for aviation research, and so on.
Is the reduction of Vinnova fully compensated, crown for crown, by what we do in the FoI part and the Armed Forces' FoI program, among other things, or the Total Defence Research Institute, which is also abbreviated as FOI, but it is a different size of one of the letters? No, it is correct that it does not. But they are in parity with each other. And we know that sometimes it is not as much money that is decisive as how the funds are used. Here, Sweden then makes a clear prioritization forward in areas that have been requested by, not least the business sector, for a long time.
One of the reasons why this has received so much attention is that it is one of the parts where we have not been able to directly meet the expectations from the business community. But that we do so in other respects is very significant. This is more difficult to communicate.
But I stand by this reprioritization in a very tough economic time where, as was notably marked in the previous interpellation debate, there are great needs in our municipalities and regions. The absolute biggest priority that the government and the coalition partners made in the budget concerns the 10 plus 6 billion total for welfare to municipalities and regions. This will continue to be an important priority.
I think we have found a good strategy here to prioritize the core and still find forward momentum. We are taking new steps forward in areas where Sweden has fallen behind and where we need to be careful not to be overtaken. With this realignment, we have nevertheless strengthened our long-term position.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to further debate these pressing issues!
Sweden has built its prosperity and its strong welfare society on being a leading innovation country. It truly gives us a unique opportunity to lead the green transition. It creates new export opportunities. It creates Swedish jobs with good conditions, and it increases prosperity throughout the country.
But then the government must raise the level of ambition. Other countries are, in fact, currently running past Sweden in both ambitions and efforts. The industry is concerned that the Swedish innovation policy will not provide the long-term boost and the funding required for Sweden to be a leading innovation country.
We see that the business community and other actors are ready to ramp up the innovation work so that Sweden can lead the green transition. Now it is up to the government to do the same.
The government must increase investments in research and innovation, develop an offensive innovation strategy, and also create the right conditions for the industry's innovative power. Otherwise, we risk losing the jobs and prosperity that the transition creates, but also our reputation as a leading innovation country. And both the Minister and I know that we cannot afford that.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking Aida Birinxhiku for this interpellation. We have touched upon these questions several times. It is also very much appreciated that there is such a clear passion, commitment, and deep understanding from the member that this is a crucial issue for Sweden. This sets the stage for us to be able to continue debating these questions during the mandate period, which I see as positive. There are so many questions pressing on within the energy and business sectors in general that the innovation area does not always get the specific space that I am convinced it needs – this I obviously share with the member.
I want to emphasize that we are in complete agreement that we in Sweden cannot lean back on what we have managed to achieve historically. Then Sweden—there we are in complete agreement, Madam Speaker—will be overtaken. We cannot rely on any kind of self-image of being good at innovation when the competition and the playing field are now changing quite radically. It is about the East, in the form of China. That is how it has been for a long time. But it is also about massive state aid within the European Union, which distorts this.
I want to conclude by returning to my openness. If there are parts that the strategies we are now putting into action do not cover, I gladly welcome a dialogue and a discussion again regarding what are appropriate measures and steps to be able to fill this gap.
Something else I want to emphasize is the research and innovation bill. The previous bill focused on climate and environment, health and welfare, digitalization, skills supply and working life, as well as a democratic and strong society. That was, therefore, the 2020 bill - it was similar to 2016. The next one will have a major focus on innovation, and I hope for constructive cooperation where possible regarding that bill.
Thank you for the interpellation!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.