Response to interpellation 2025/26:155 on the government's management of green credit guarantees
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the government's management of green credit guarantees. M considers it reasonable to pause and evaluate the guarantees to protect taxpayers' money and ensure purposefulness 1. M argues that it is important to manage public finances responsibly 2. M considers nuclear power to be a cornerstone for Swedish industry and the labor market 3, and that state money for extreme risk-taking can hinder innovation 4. S argues that the government is getting rid of effective tools for productive investments and industrial capacity 5. S argues that the pause risks costing Sweden jobs, growth, welfare, and security 6. S considers that the government chooses to scrap support for Swedish industry despite a global race 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.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Olovsson has asked the Minister for Energy and Industry what analysis lies behind the fact that the government is divesting itself of the opportunity for development of business, industry, and the Swedish economy through the issuance of green credit guarantees.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
The Government does not request any authorization in the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1) to issue new state green credit guarantees for large industrial investments in 2026. Already entered into agreements will not be affected.
For the government, it is central to safeguard the taxpayers' money and to stand guard over order in the public finances. State commitments should be regularly evaluated and reassessed to ensure purposefulness and efficiency. The guarantee program covers a type of investment where it is particularly difficult to calculate both risks and socio-economic efficiency. The program has now been in place for a number of years.
The Government considers that an evaluation should be carried out before further credit guarantees for green investments are issued. The Government has tasked Statskontoret with evaluating the green credit guarantees for investments. The evaluation shall include a mapping and an analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the current guarantee program as a tool to promote green industrial investments that contribute to Sweden reaching its environmental and climate policy goals.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, growth is low and unemployment is high. The number of business bankruptcies has hit record levels, and at the same time, competition for the establishment of new companies and operations around the world is increasing. We also see how the needs for transformation in existing companies are very large in Sweden. The new geopolitical tug-of-war in the world and Russia's war in Ukraine also show that industrial production capability and industrial capacity are important not only for our economy and for our welfare but also for Swedish and European security.
In that situation, the Sweden Democrats and the Swedish government choose to get rid of the tools that have existed to enable large, productive investments in Sweden, namely the credit guarantees that I am interpellating about. Furthermore, they are making significant cuts to Industriklivet, which also exists to enable important investments in our industrial capacity in companies that often constitute Sweden's industrial base.
The only real argument that the Minister puts forward in his answer is that one wants to evaluate the policy. That in itself is perfectly excellent. The state has a long line of bodies that evaluate policy, which is very important. But what is strange in this case is that one chooses to shut down the program, end the possibility for new measures, and get rid of the tool before then carrying out the evaluation. There is nothing forcing the government to act in this way, more than possibly the Sverigedemokraterna. It would have been possible to continue keeping it open for credit guarantees while simultaneously evaluating and even finding potential for improvement in the measures and in how the system looks.
Mr. Speaker! A year ago, however, the government had a completely different argument. In the budget bill applicable for this year, it was written then: "The state guarantee model implies a responsible management of the financial risks where the state shares the risk with private actors on market terms. By contributing to making long-term investments possible, the guarantee program has a role in the development of sustainable large-scale industrial technology."
Furthermore, the National Institute of Economic Research shows in its latest assessment of the fiscal multipliers, that is, how effectively a Swedish invested state budget krona is for reducing unemployment or for increasing growth, that this type of investment subsidy is very effective policy. On the other hand, the government's large tax cuts, especially for high-income earners, do not fare particularly well in such a comparison. The Sweden Democrats and the government are therefore discarding the tools that, according to the government's own expert agency, are effective, and are instead spending the money on inefficient measures.
This is what the Minister for Finance calls safeguarding the taxpayers' money. I would rather call it Ebberöd's bank. The entire perspective can also possibly explain why right-wing governments normally do exactly as this one does, namely leave behind large deficits in public finances. That was done in 1982, 1994, 2014 and, as it looks now, also 2026. Furthermore, they suppress growth and increase unemployment.
The Minister has a few more points to make and can then explain himself a bit better, because as it stands, the argumentation does not hold up particularly well.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Olovsson, for the opportunity to debate green credit guarantees and industrial policy!
Over the last 30 years, Swedish growth has performed better than the average in the EU. Above all, Swedish industry has accounted for a large part of the positive development. But now we see a hardening global market with competing economies investing heavily in their industries. In Sweden, we no longer have increasing growth, but it is falling. We also have an unemployment rate that continues to rise and a productivity that is stagnating.
There are, however, good conditions for Sweden to position itself well in this, Mr. Speaker. The Swedish industry is, after all, strong. It stands for groundbreaking technology and for high-quality products. It is not basically gone, as Reinfeldt once expressed it, but the Swedish industry is on the contrary more vital than it has been in a long time. There are therefore good conditions for Sweden to position itself. But that requires political leadership, Mr. Speaker.
In a final report from the government's own productivity commission, it is established that capital supply and financing are central for companies, especially within technology, innovation, and transition, to be able to grow. Long-term access to capital and good conditions for investment and risk are required. The commission also highlights that Sweden needs to strengthen the management of intangible assets with clearer support, competence, and structures. This is needed so that ideas can be commercialized and contribute to productivity growth.
Of course, competition, efficient markets and predictability in our regulatory frameworks are needed. But if there is no long-term capital for groundbreaking technology and the industries of the future, funds will not be provided to Swedish companies, as we know that the market under-invests in that type of risk.
Other countries have realized this, Mr. Speaker. Industrial policy is hardening from competing economies, which has been palpable for the entire European Union but especially for Sweden. Both the USA and China are subsidizing, and it is clearly visible that the support is directed towards the green transition and towards groundbreaking technology.
In that situation, the Swedish government chooses to do the opposite. They remove the support for green credit guarantees when every day is crucial for Sweden's position as a leading industrial nation. Not only that, Mr. Speaker. They have also chosen to almost completely scrap Industriklivet, which has been completely crucial for highly innovative Swedish growth companies when they are to scale up.
The government unfortunately seems unable to understand the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in regarding our competitiveness and chooses to ignore our industry in a situation where we should be joining forces. Trade tariffs, war, and unfair competition have made corporate support a matter of security policy. Support for Swedish companies, Mr. Speaker, is fundamentally a question of industrial sovereignty.
I want Sweden to continue to be a strong industrial nation. I understand that Niklas Wykman and I may have slightly different views on how to manage the Swedish economy. But if he does not want to listen to me, he can listen to the EU Commission, which is now making great efforts to position Europe against competing economies. He can listen to the Productivity Commission's final report, which states that we need long-term support for companies with groundbreaking technology for productivity growth. He can also listen to Svenskt Näringsliv, which emphasizes the importance of risk-sharing between the state and the business sector.
I would like to ask the Minister: What is the government's coherent industrial policy? Does Niklas Wykman believe that the state needs to bear some of the risk in groundbreaking technology and the industry of the future?
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost: Many thanks to Fredrik Olovsson for a very good and pertinent question about how we should strengthen Swedish competitiveness! How one achieves groundbreaking discoveries and how one can implement effective production methods in industry is central to Swedish competitiveness but also to the climate transition.
Fundamentally, it is pleasing that we agree on these matters. If one does not have to, one should not question each other's motives. I am fully convinced that there is a broad consensus between Moderater and Socialdemokrater, but also many other parties in this chamber, that Sweden shall be a leading industrial country. We shall be leaders in terms of adopting new technology, among other things to combat climate change and in other different ways to be able to maintain a high standard of living with full employment and high growth while simultaneously reducing our impact on animals, nature, and climate. The question is how we do this in the best way, not whether we should do it.
Possibly, a big deal is being made of a rather limited matter now, Mr. Speaker. The green credit guarantees have been issued to, among others, Preem, Stegra, Northvolt and SSAB – all of course companies that can, or in one case could, do things that can improve our industry. But it is far from a broad support that is paid out to many and carries the entire Swedish industry. It concerns a few issued green guarantees.
With this said, I will always, Mr. Speaker, safeguard the taxpayers' money and the public finances. That one occasionally wants to stop, evaluate, and in calm and peace go through whether what one is doing has an effect, is purposeful and in the best way takes advantage of Swedish taxpayers' and the Swedish nation's interests is sound and reasonable. I do not think it needs to be described with any grand adjectives, but it is fundamentally reasonable that one takes a pause and reflects on what one is doing and if one is doing it in the right way.
Even though the credit guarantees concern a small number of companies, it is about very large sums of money. We politicians manage other people's money, regardless of what values or opinions we have, and we have in common that we have no money of our own to move with, but rather we have the taxpayers' and pensioners' money. To then want to stop and conduct an evaluation to ensure that they are used in the right way, I think is sound. If one is as convinced as Fredrik Olovsson that this program is the right way to go and that it is being done in the right way, one should also not need to be so worried about such an evaluation or about a year being spent on doing this, with a pause during the time it is being done. That is also sound.
Finally, one can consider how Sweden should compete. Here, the Social Democrats perhaps need to take a long look at things after all. If it is with the help of taxpayers' and pensioners' money and with risk to the public finances, larger countries simply have much more to give than Sweden does. We need to find our own ways to be leading in.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Niklas Wykman, who explains his position a bit more extensively! I do not think it becomes much better because of that, however.
I think it is interesting that the government thinks one should take a one-year break now during the election year when it comes to this type of effort for Swedish growth and more jobs, when we simultaneously see that unemployment is very high and that growth during this mandate period will be historically low. If we add to this that almost no new cheap electricity production will come to the country during this period, it is clear that the picture of what Swedish growth and Swedish industry should be becomes a bit blurry when one listens to the government.
These guarantees have also primarily come about during the period that Niklas Wykman has been Minister for Finance and responsible for the issues. Now he is changing his argumentation from that in last year's budget bill – the one that therefore applies for this year – he meant that this is a responsible management of the financial risks, where the state shares risk with private actors on market terms, which cannot be compared with the gigantic corporate subsidies that exist in many other countries: in the USA, in several of the countries that are our EU friends but also of course in China.
Then, of course, one wants to know what lies behind this turn. Is it only the Sweden Democrats who have pushed for this tool to be paused? Or does Niklas Wykman himself also fundamentally think it is reasonable for Sweden to practically stand completely without this type of cost-effective tool – not least when one is also cutting back on Industriklivet, which targets hundreds of Swedish industrial companies that often have it quite tough?
The big question and the big problem perhaps still is that it is the Sweden Democrats' view on Swedish industry that gets to rule – the view on the importance of an industrial base and industrial production capacity, or perhaps rather the inability to see the great importance. When the policy is now being scaled back in this area, nothing else will come of it.
Then we may come back to the line that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro also took up here. The former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt could, before the economic world elite in Davos, happily proclaim that the industry in Sweden was basically gone, practically gone. If this policy continues, that is, not least against the background that we now see with warnings and layoffs in both the steel industry, the forest industry, and the automotive industry, in that direction this government is taking Sweden. New steps are being taken towards the industry being basically gone, despite the fact that it has fantastic opportunities to develop in the entire country.
This risks costing Sweden jobs, growth and welfare, but also ultimate security and supply readiness. This is what Niklas Wykman's pause risks contributing to.
We want a different development. We truly believe in Swedish industry and in Swedish industrial workers and engineers. We think they should have competitive conditions that are sustainable in order to be able to compete in a world where other countries act in a completely different way, much more aggressively, and where much of the world that Niklas Wykman and I grew up in politically is gone and will never come back. In that case, it is of course important to be able to review one's policy and really evaluate it. But to take a break in such a situation is actually not responsible.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Mr. Speaker! I did not receive an answer to my question regarding what the government's coherent industrial policy is. I hope that I can get an answer to that question. Similar to what was pointed out by Fredrik Olovsson regarding the various industrial subsidies, we see that it is not only the green credit guarantees that are being paused. The government also chooses to almost scrap Industriklivet, which is important so that the companies that Wykman highlights, which are small or medium-sized and additionally highly innovative, can compete on the global market.
The green credit guarantees have gone to companies that have a much higher turnover. It becomes a bit strange. I would like to hear a bit more about the government's view on the state's possibility to share risk to ensure that highly innovative small and medium-sized enterprises can also compete on the global market.
Regarding the question concerning state aid, Mr. Speaker, which Niklas Wykman was touching upon, we see that the EU is now making a fairly substantial effort to ensure that we can work strategically with state aid. I completely agree that we cannot compete with state aid. That is precisely why it is important that we have a strategic use of our public funds. In that regard, we have, for example, the IPCEI framework, which has been presented by the EU. It would be interesting to know – I have not received an answer from either Romina Pourmokhtari or Ebba Busch – whether the government intends to enable more projects according to the IPCEI framework in order to be able to use public funds more strategically. Perhaps I can get an answer from Niklas Wykman on that question.
Mr. Speaker! It is very difficult to know what the government's overall industrial policy is. It is said that support is important and that we all want to see Sweden as a leading industrial nation. But when the whole world is participating in a race and trying to position itself, the government chooses to abolish the support for Swedish industry. So I maintain my question: What is the government's overall industrial policy? It is impossible for me to understand, Mr. Speaker.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Fredrik Olovsson for a good interpellation on an issue that is important for Sweden. We should have more such debates in this chamber. Then I was a bit disappointed when Fredrik Olovsson still couldn't help but bring up the Sweden Democrats – yet another debate that is going to be about the Sweden Democrats. At that point, one feels like asking how Fredrik Olovsson intends to resolve the growth with the Green Party.
Fredrik Olovsson mentioned, for example, the forest industry as important. I do not know exactly how it is going to work. I listened to Amanda Lind here. It is difficult to see how one is to achieve a growth-friendly policy together with Miljöpartiet. But Fredrik Olovsson and I can certainly sort that out at some other time.
Fredrik Olovsson has made significant contributions in opposition so that Sweden can achieve better growth in the future, by repairing the very broken Social Democratic shutdown policy regarding Swedish nuclear power. Fundamentally, it is a prerequisite for us to be able to have a highly efficient industry in Sweden and for us to be able to be leading when it comes to phasing out carbon-heavy types of energy. Then we must have a clean energy production.
I welcome the work that Fredrik Olovsson has put in so that we can once again be able to build nuclear power in Sweden, and I am pleased that the Social Democrats have the same figures as the government in their budget when it comes to now being able to build new nuclear power in Sweden again.
Mr. Speaker! Nuclear power, the clean, stable and reliable energy production, has been and is a cornerstone for Swedish industry and, in the long run, the Swedish labor market to be among the best in the world. It is pleasing that the Social Democrats have now put the decommissioning policy behind them.
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the growth figures, it however seems that the Social Democrats and Fredrik Olovsson need to update themselves on what has happened and is happening in the economy.
It is true that we had very unsuccessful policy in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 regarding GDP per capita. There were several years when Sweden performed poorly in comparison with other EU countries. Magdalena Andersson performed poorly as Finance Minister, and Sweden performed poorly in comparison with other EU countries in GDP per capita. One can summarize it by saying that Sweden botched the previous boom.
When the economy is now predicted to turn upwards, it is precisely the opposite with a Moderate-led government. According to several analysts, Sweden is now expected to achieve higher growth than the EU average, contrary to what is claimed in the debate. We have recently heard analyst after analyst speak about how Swedish growth is now expected to gain stronger momentum than the EU average.
When it comes to the industrial policy itself, the Social Democrats in opposition have had many innovative ideas in the area. There have been industrial chancellors, innovation catapults, and so on. And now, it is therefore a question of a large state investment bank, if I have understood correctly, which in some way is to use Swedish pensioners' and Swedish taxpayers' money and pay it out to guarantee various types of risky projects. The question, however, is whether that is the best way to drive innovation. But I understand that the Social Democrats want to use the taxpayers' money in that way.
We are evaluating. We have a pause in the green credit guarantees. My conviction is that it is motivated labor, good wages, fair conditions, a good school, more trained civil engineers and good conditions for business and entrepreneurship rather than state support programs that do the trick.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Possibly with the exception of nuclear power, Niklas Wykman, for there they are gigantic. The ideological stance may not hold in all areas.
I thank you very much for the praise regarding our significant efforts for growth. However, they have not only occurred in opposition. If we make a comparison between Social Democratic government periods and bourgeois ones in modern times, the outcome is always the same: It goes better for us than it does for you. It goes better for Sweden in terms of both GDP and GDP per capita regardless of which periods we choose.
The forecasts for the future do not change this. But it would be good for Sweden if we were to overperform in the future. However, very little speaks in favor of that, not least because other countries and governments are working much harder than Sweden's government to win investments. In Sweden, the opposite is being done.
We also hear that the National Institute of Economic Research says that precisely this type of investment subsidy is effective and responsible policy. This was exactly what Niklas Wykman wrote in the budget bill a year ago.
We really see industrial capacity and industrial production capability as very important for Sweden. It is important for jobs and for growth in the whole country, of course, but also crucially for security in the current geopolitical situation. Therefore, it is regrettable that so little is being done and almost nothing new is being done in this area.
We see layoffs in the steel industry, in the forestry industry, and in the automotive industry. It is tough out there, but the government chooses not to take responsibility for it. There are no additional measures, not even educational opportunities, as the proportion of unemployed people has increased during this parliamentary term. There are 100,000 more people without jobs. The conditions for jobs and growth in Sweden are therefore becoming worse.
Ultimately, if one may take a bit of liberty and add up all the measures – not only the green credit guarantees but also what is happening in the education sector and the innovation sector and what is also happening in the energy sector when no new investment decisions are made – Sweden becomes poorer and, in the worst case, also more dangerous.
I thank you very much for the interpellation debate and would be happy to continue the discussion with both Sverigedemokrater and Moderater.
Finansmarknadsministern Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Olovsson looked uncertain about whether he should remain at the rostrum or not. But I am glad that he does.
I also gladly continue this discussion. Growth is completely central to our welfare, to our employment, and to people's quality of life. The more people who want to talk about it, the better.
Then Fredrik Olovsson mentions something that is very relevant, including state investments in nuclear power. One can also talk about other state investments in basic infrastructure such as roads or railways.
When we talk about green credit guarantees, it is nevertheless important to make a distinction. An evaluation has now been commissioned. Exactly how it should be conducted will be answered by Statskontoret.
But it is clear that there is a dividing line between, on one hand, investing in proven technology where one knows it works and what effect it has – that is such things as nuclear power, roads and railways, which should be important national matters – and on the other hand, investing in the entrepreneurial, experimental part of the economy, where one does not yet fully know which technology will work and how it will strike. It is about different competencies and different abilities. It is not certain that the state or the state's money does the same good in the different types of projects. That is, among other things, something that one needs to consider.
For the extreme risk-taking that needs to define the entrepreneurial economy and innovation, state funds can perhaps be a gas or a factor that helps. But it can possibly also be a brake that brings down just this type of risk-taking and experimentation that needs to characterize new development in the economy.
The overall picture can perhaps be nuanced. ”Stockholm is Europe’s new capital of capital” wrote The Economist recently. And Financial Times wrote about ”how Sweden’s stock market became the envy of Europe”. The major international observers say that Sweden is the country to be envious of. It is far from the pessimistic picture that Fredrik Olovsson paints.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.