Response to interpellation 2023/24:744 on Sweden as an innovation country

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro has asked me in what ways I believe the cuts at Vinnova and other parts of Innovationssverige will affect Swedish competitiveness, and whether the government intends to return with an innovation strategy.

The government has not reduced the ambitions for Sweden when it comes to innovation and research. On the contrary, the government has the ambition to streamline and renew how research and innovation shall be financed and which challenges should be prioritized, as well as to strengthen the conditions generally for innovative companies to operate in Sweden. We are laying the foundation for a more innovative Sweden.

The Government has also laid the foundation for a clearer strategic coordination between funders of research and innovation regarding both how efforts should be prioritized and how we support innovation through two new assignments to Vinnova. The assignment to identify and propose strategically important technologies for Sweden shall result in a knowledge base for the Government for future efforts that strengthen Sweden's competitiveness and the business sector's investments in research and development. The assignment to coordinate and streamline public support for young innovative companies shall contribute to a more efficient, coherent, and transparent public support system for development and growth in what is called young innovative companies - or in English: scaleups and startups.

The government also has a close dialogue with the business community on these issues, in several different forums, precisely because the government is keen to strengthen Sweden's innovation and competitiveness.

In addition to excellence and internationalization, innovation is one of the key themes of the upcoming research and innovation bill. The government's upcoming bill will highlight innovation from various perspectives. I can assure the interpellator that the government takes these issues most seriously.

In the budget bill for 2024, the government proposes several different initiatives for education and research that shall strengthen the engineering nation Sweden and meet the large competence needs, which are notably present among innovative companies. This includes, among other things, an expansion of the civil engineering programs and an increase in the compensation amounts for education within natural sciences and technology. Without knowledge, there is no innovation.

We are making a major investment in 6G in this year's budget. Previously, we have scaled up the state's participation in the Advanced Digitalization program. We have also made an investment in establishing an innovation cluster for the commercialization of advanced pharmaceuticals. The Government has prioritized these investments to contribute to Swedish innovative power. With these investments, we have shown that we are investing long-term in precisely competitiveness and growth.

I fully understand that there are questions as to whether this implies a lowered level of ambition from the government regarding innovations and need-based research. But that is not the case.

The level of ambition must, in addition to the upcoming initiatives on innovation in the research and innovation bill, also be placed alongside the major reinforcement of research and technology development within the defense area that the government is making in the budget bill for 2024. The government provides increased resources to 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.

There is an increased potential for dual-use between civil research and defense research, not least when it comes to new and emerging technologies. Consequently, there is also a great potential in strengthening synergies and cooperation benefits between civil and military research, innovation, and technological development. This we have chosen to prioritize.

In conclusion: Ahead of the budget bill for 2025, tax proposals regarding a lowered compensation level for the experts' tax are now being referred, which aims to create better conditions for companies to both attract and retain international key competence and benefit Swedish competitiveness.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation. These are undeniably very important questions for Sweden's competitiveness, but I would also like to assert that Swedish innovations are a very important foundation for the entire EU's competitiveness.

I would still say that we in Sweden have been very successful when it comes to innovations, and I would like to assert that our welfare nation and everything that constitutes it is an important breeding ground where innovations can grow. We see how it is in Sweden: Students can turn their ideas into reality precisely because they do not have high student loans, and that is something that I believe both I and the Minister of State think is very good. We also see how they generate ideas that can then be commercialized and then compete on a global market.

When we Social Democrats were in government, we worked very actively with our industrial policy; we worked with companies and the business community because we wanted to identify what Sweden is good at. We wanted companies and the state to work out how to solve these challenges together, because these are common challenges for which solutions are best found collectively. We strengthened the national incubator program, which turns 20 years old this year, Madam Speaker. To date, 40,000 direct jobs have been created through the national incubator program.

I think it is regrettable that every time Ebba Busch answers an interpellation on innovation, the national incubator program is not mentioned and how important it has been for Swedish innovation and for startups and scaleups in our country. It is 40,000 jobs that are directly linked to these investments, but these 40,000 jobs have also generated several other jobs.

We also gave a mandate to Vinnova to have industrial giants such as SSAB and others look outside their own organizations, precisely to promote startups and ensure that they also get to be part of the industrial initiatives that are now being made in Western Sweden and in northern Sweden. I believe that this has been incredibly successful.

Madam Speaker! Several countries have looked at Sweden with envy, and I would say that envy is an incredible driving force; now we see how country after country is producing legislation to promote these highly innovative companies. They are making certain regulatory improvements, but above all, they are developing quite offensive innovation strategies. We can take France as an example, Madam Speaker. There, one receives extra support if it is the case that one's idea, initiative, thought, or company works in line with the innovation strategy that France has decided upon.

I have taken note of what the government parties presented yesterday in Dagens industri, and I can say this, Madam Speaker: It is good that the government now thinks that we need to find what Sweden is good at. Those who know what Sweden is good at are our most innovative companies, which have worked with these issues for decades, and our science parks, which create the platform between academia and innovations and ensure that the innovations become reality.

What is regrettable, Madam Speaker, is that there is no innovation strategy being presented by the government. It is not even the government that is to lead the work. Vinnova is to be tasked with finding out which technologies Sweden is good at. I think that is quite poor. I think the government should take the lead and say: We shall develop an innovation strategy from the department and invite companies, science parks, academia, and opposition parties, so that we can jointly decide which path Sweden should take.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the Minister why the government does not present an offensive innovation strategy that builds on what Sweden is good at and ensures that there is a long-term plan for how we are to compete on a global market with the many innovations we see.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to cover several aspects and start at this end: Sweden has 7,792 tech startups and scaleups. That may have changed since this morning, but it is quite a lot. They employ approximately 300,000 people. Heavy investments are going into this. Some figures indicate that it was 4.7 billion euro last year. We have approximately 41 so-called unicorns, which means that one currently has a valuation of over 1 billion dollars.

A large part of the EU's innovation fund has been awarded to Sweden. Approximately 20 percent of the total funds in the first two rounds of calls have gone to companies in Sweden. It is not always a reflection of how things look in reality, but it says very much about the strength that has existed and still exists in Sweden. We need to take advantage of that.

I am very happy to be able to debate these issues. We have done so a number of times. There is a great commitment to them, but one can notice that it is difficult for people to keep up with what concrete difference they make in everyday life. One sometimes uses somewhat fancy English terms.

It is curiosity, innovation, and hard work that have built Swedish prosperity. I had the opportunity to highlight this when US Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Commerce Raimondo, and Trade Ambassador Tai were present during the Trade and Technology Council in Luleå last year. I was able to concretely demonstrate innovations and ideas that have led to prosperity and progress and built Sweden strong.

Now we see a new industrial revolution gaining momentum in Sweden. Through technological development, Sweden once again has the opportunity to build many strong companies that create prosperity, welfare, and jobs throughout the country. I believe it is important because it points to the possibility of faith in the future, hope, and a brighter tomorrow in the darkness that rightly characterizes much of today's news reporting.

I want to emphasize that the two most recent research and innovation bills, which the Social Democrats were responsible for, lacked "innovation" as a leading principle. What we are doing now is putting innovation at the center. Much good came from the previous research and innovation bills. That is not what it is about. We are trying to build upon them. I think it is important to join forces, but clear responses are already coming from the business community and academia. They notice that innovation is at the center alongside the focus on basic research.

I think it is completely right in tough times to focus on the most strategic, and that the budget allocations for research and innovation on the defense side have increased significantly. That belongs better there than at Vinnova. At the same time, Vinnova receives a sharpened and focused mandate moving forward, which can then be integrated into the new research and innovation proposition that we are currently working on.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to comment on what was said regarding the previous research and innovation bill.

I do not agree with the Minister that innovation was not one of the key words in the previous research and innovation bill. It should be remembered that it was submitted in the middle of the pandemic. It is therefore clear that much took off in healthcare and life science. Life science companies thought that bill was very good. Incredible investments were made in precisely that area.

I can agree that it perhaps lacked breadth, but it was a research and innovation proposal that was very much characterized by its time. It is worth mentioning.

Regarding innovations in general, I had the privilege last Tuesday to give the opening speech at Sweden's Innovation Parliament, where over 400 representatives from startup and scaleup companies participated, as well as science parks and incubators from all over the country. Every time I meet these companies, I gain more faith in the future. I feel that they have the ideas we need to tackle the many challenges we face.

Madam Speaker! It is regrettable that the companies do not feel as much faith in the future as I do. They feel the cuts at Vinnova that the government has presented. They can no longer afford to prioritize the startups and scaleups that the government is very concerned about. They notice how their production angels, for example in Södertälje science park, need to shut down or find some other type of financing - which they probably will not do.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that one can have different opinions on what types of investments should be carried out, but the government has made very abrupt changes. Vinnova's own impact assessment says that this will affect many startups and expects cuts totaling 1 billion. That is what the agency itself says. I would say that they still have some credibility. I assume that the government also has confidence in that agency, given that it is now to be tasked with identifying which technologies Sweden should focus on. I think it is concerning, Madam Speaker, because we are in a situation where, for example, the number of patents is increasing within green technology. It is an area where we in Sweden can truly compete.

I was saying earlier that national strategies are being developed in country after country, but Sweden, judging by everything, will not present any innovation strategy during this parliamentary term. It is very regrettable.

Madam Speaker! If we are to catch up, we must do so in both words and actions. We need to present in what way Sweden shall meet the many challenges we face. Innovation is an important part of that work.

I would also like to assert that there is a very concerning approach when it comes to innovations. Tobias Andersson is sitting here in the chamber now and has also pointed out that it is precisely at Vinnova that they want to make cuts because it has been inefficient. But science parks and incubators – that is, not the companies that have received part of these funds, but those that have worked with them – argue that this has generated jobs and ideas that have subsequently been commercialized and realized.

People who work with innovation policy understand that a krona invested by the state almost always pays for itself ten times over. It is clear, Madam Speaker, that there will be companies that do not manage and fail. Some ideas will not make it to the market. But that is how it is with innovation! It means that one tests new things and tries to solve the many crises we face.

I believe that the state should have an active industrial policy. The state should be involved in leading the work. But obviously, the government wants to hand over the responsibility to the agency instead of taking on the leadership role themselves and pointing out which paths Sweden should take in a clear and offensive innovation strategy.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to clarify some of the comments.

It is when people dare to move from an idea of a problem that one believes they have a solution for to action—perhaps starting a company and turning their idea into a workshop—that we build prosperity. For me, it is very heartening that we can meet across the aisle when it comes to the fact that there is much hope and faith in the future in what is happening in the business sector right now. But times are also changing. I can confirm what Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro says about the latest research and innovation proposal being strongly influenced by the pandemic. I see and respect that, even if I do not agree with all parts. In the same way, it would be irresponsible of us, Madam Speaker, not to now weigh in that we have wars, not in the European Union but indeed in Europe.

It means that the government is making a clear prioritization, exactly what Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro is requesting, in favor of that which can have so-called dual use, that is to say, be used both in the civil and in the military. We have chosen to allocate increased funds to a military innovation program and expanded research within the defense area to strengthen Sweden's capabilities to meet future threats.

Does this mean that there are parts of interesting and relevant innovation work that will consequently become lower priority? I think one should be honest and say yes. In this situation, it means that we are making a redistribution of some resources that previously went to Vinnova. They are now instead going to the defense side, given that we have war in our part of the world. I defend and stand up for this prioritization. I mean that this also contributes generally to strengthening Swedish competitiveness and the industry's innovative power. It gives us a clear advantage.

Furthermore, I want to point out that there is an urgency. I have previously had the opportunity to debate with the interpellor and other representatives for the Socialdemokraterna, whose great commitment to these issues I truly appreciate, regarding whether we should have specifically a strategy program for innovation. I have not ruled it out. But we are now choosing to execute what I believe is the purpose of a strategic document in a different way. I think one can have respect for the fact that there are different ways to achieve the goal.

What the four coalition parties presented concretely the day before yesterday and yesterday was a mandate to Vinnova to identify 5-15 strategic areas where Sweden must manage to prioritize. There is a great advantage and strength in Sweden in that we like to work in consensus as much as possible, but sometimes we want to give everything to everyone. In a situation where we have very tough competition from others, Sweden must decide what we will really excel in and what we shall be absolutely best at. In that case, one cannot prioritize everything.

Madam Speaker! It sounds somewhat contradictory when the member says that on the one hand, the government should decide this, and on the other hand, it is the startup and scaleup companies, the innovative companies and the business sector itself that know best. The government is trying to take both into account and take the responsibility we have, but also see that those out in the business sector themselves know best where much of the potential lies.

We do this by giving this assignment to Vinnova and then incorporating it into the research and innovation bill, which the government is responsible for and which the Riksdag shall decide on. It is a good way to meet both of these needs.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! No, I did not say that the government should decide this. I said that the government should lead the work. Those are two completely different things.

Now they are shifting it over to Vinnova. I can give a concrete example of how the government could lead this. If one is to lead a project, one can, for example, work through collaboration programs where meetings are held continuously and where there is a clear purpose and a goal. One can invite highly innovative companies, industrial giants, academia, the opposition, and the social partners. That is how we have worked. It was a choice we made when we were in government, but obviously, this is not a choice the current government is making, which I regret.

Let me quote from the debate article that came out the day before yesterday, where there were almost no answers to the major challenges we see: "We therefore particularly want to urge the technology- and research-intensive companies to share their strategic trade-offs and be part of the force gathering."

Madam Speaker! There is a simple way to find out what they think about the challenges that exist and the choices that need to be made: Invite them to the Government Offices and talk to them, for example, in a cooperation program!

When it comes to focusing and making a choice, I agree with the Minister. We need to prioritize and find what Sweden is good at. That is why I think we need an innovation strategy. It is precisely such a strategy that has been developed in country after country. The aim is that politics and the business community together should come to an agreement on what the country is good at and what it should invest in. That is what we in the Social Democrats agree on.

But Ebba Busch does not want any innovation strategy, Madam Speaker, and I do not understand why. I would like to have an answer to the question of why Ebba Busch does not want to present an innovation strategy - not a strategy program, as the Minister said. This is incredibly important.

If one is to understand these issues, one can put it like this: You might not win elections on innovation strategies, but you win elections on faith in the future. That is exactly what innovation provides.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I agree with so much of the approach in the member's last speech that I would actually like to applaud it, but I do not agree with the somewhat square way of reasoning regarding the form. I regret that I used a different word instead of innovation strategy, but that proves my point a little bit.

What is the purpose? We are both looking to have a clear strategy and a clear direction for what Sweden should prioritize in the future. I think we are doing it in a good way, partly through the research and innovation bill, and partly through the assignment to Vinnova, which is to be incorporated into parts of this. It could not be clearer. It is a crystal-clear assignment regarding 5-15 strategic technologies that are to be prioritized.

My job consists of having a continuous dialogue with the business sector in general, but not least also specifically the innovative companies. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Studsvik. They had not had a ministerial visit since 1977, ten years before I was born. Despite the fact that they conduct cutting-edge research of absolute world-class and drive this future faith, visits to them have not been something that has been prioritized. This is research that means we can cure cancer and that we can get a better functioning energy system.

The same applies to Ericsson and Science Park in Mjärdevi, where I was the day before. It had then been 40 years since Olof Palme was there at the inauguration. On the day 40 years later, I was on site there and listened to them regarding what is crucial in, for example, the open RAN issues so that they can carry out their work in the future.

They praised the assignment that we have now given. That is the response we have received from the business community so far. I believe we both agree on the goal. Then it is obvious that we have slightly different views on the way there. I thank you for the interpellation.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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