Response to interpellations 2025/26:130 and 132 on Swedish innovative power
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Swedish innovative power and how research should be transformed into technical solutions. KD argues that Sweden has a fantastic starting point 1 and that the current research and innovation bill is the largest in Sweden's history 2. KD emphasizes the need for a unified policy, strategic investments in groundbreaking technologies, excellence clusters, and reinforced technical infrastructure via Rise 1 2. KD defends the prioritization of defense components in Vinnova's mandate 3 and wants stronger tools for economic security and intellectual property 2. S argues that the government began the mandate period with significant cuts to Vinnova 4 and demands a national innovation strategy 4. S wants a national intellectual property strategy 5 and more funds for commercialization 6. S considers the ongoing work to be insufficient 5.
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! I regret now a little that I have cut off my surname. I am registered as Ebba-Elisabeth Busch-Christensen. I state this because Aida Birinxhiku and Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro have asked me what measures the government intends to take to take a unified and strategic grip on Swedish innovative power, as well as what the government's main strategic interventions are to strengthen Sweden's technical leadership and industrial competitiveness in the long term.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has a fantastic starting position. We top the European Innovation Scoreboard as the most innovative country in the EU, and for the third year in a row, the UN's intellectual property organization Wipo has named Sweden the second most innovative country in the world.
At the same time, the uncertain geopolitical situation of recent years and the global technological competition have had a negative impact on both Swedish competitiveness and our national security. It is no longer enough to be good at many things if Sweden is to continue to assert itself globally and safeguard both its competitiveness and its security.
In order for Sweden to be able to be an international leader in innovation and win competitive advantages in both existing and emerging industries, a more unified policy and a strategic investment in technological development that spans the entire field, from basic research to application and commercialization, is required. This direction is translated into the research and innovation bill, where the government invests 6.5 billion kronor in high-quality free research and innovation.
The initiatives include, among other things, increased funds for excellent research, increased and competitive funds for the universities, strengthened research infrastructure, and investments in groundbreaking technologies that strengthen Sweden's position in the global technology competition. For example, the government is establishing excellence clusters for strategic and groundbreaking technology that bring together the country's leading researchers and companies. We are strengthening the innovation-supporting functions of universities and colleges, and we are strengthening the infrastructure for technological development through the research institute Rise.
In an uncertain world, forward-looking investments are only half the solution. Research and innovation are strategic assets that must be protected. We must be open to international cooperation but at the same time have the ability to actively defend that which is of great importance for Sweden. International research and innovation collaborations must therefore be conducted as openly as possible and at the same time as securely as possible.
The government has tasked state universities and colleges and a number of agencies to develop guidelines for responsible internationalization. At the same time, we are working for increased protection and utilization of Swedish research and innovation by the government taking a collective grip on intellectual property issues as well as increasing funds to the Patent and Registration Office and Vinnova for knowledge-enhancing initiatives regarding intellectual property.
Madam Speaker! Sweden is and shall remain one of the world's leading industrial and innovation countries. Through cohesive initiatives that combine large investments with responsible protection of innovation opportunities, the government takes the grip needed for our leadership in an increasingly competitive and uncertain world.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer! We have debated Swedish innovation policy several times before in this chamber, and only during the last few years have we seen how the geopolitical playing field is changing and how the global competition hardens with each passing day. This is no longer just a question of our competitiveness, but it is also, to the highest degree, a matter of our resilience.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has long been a leading innovation country. Therefore, it is quite right as the Minister pointed out that Sweden has a fantastic starting point. At the same time, we face great challenges. Therefore, I want to begin by addressing two things that the Minister highlighted in his answer.
Firstly, it is good that the government is increasing the appropriations to Vinnova, but the mandate period actually began with significant cuts. We still see the consequences today. They are clearly and distinctly evident from the agency's impact analysis of the most recent reductions in the area. Furthermore, it sends completely wrong signals in a situation where other countries are choosing to increase innovation initiatives and raise the level of ambition.
The second thing I want to address, Madam Speaker, is that the Minister himself raised the need for a more unified and strategic initiative. That is precisely the reason why we Social Democrats, through me and Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, since the beginning of this parliamentary term have demanded a national innovation strategy.
Madam Speaker! A while ago, Iva presented a report mapping Sweden's global position within 48 strategically important technologies. It shows, among other things, that we are doing well when it comes to batteries and autonomous vehicles, but that we are losing ground in life science and face major challenges when it comes to AI. The reason I highlight just this report is that it puts its finger on what is the challenge ahead for Swedish innovation policy.
The great challenge is how we can develop existing areas of strength while simultaneously strengthening Sweden's position within the emerging and strategic technology areas, such as AI and green technology. A clear vision and direction for Swedish innovation policy and how we create tomorrow's prosperity are also needed. For that very reason, Madam Speaker, we need a national innovation strategy.
We need to take a unified and strategic approach to our innovation policy, especially in light of the changed geopolitical situation. If Minister Ebba Busch was not convinced of this previously, I hope she is now. When we debated these issues in the chamber in 2023, the minister said: "If all those strategies and the work that is underway in the Government Offices do not meet what is the intention of a pure innovation strategy, we will be able to return with such a mandate."
Now the conclusion from the business community and academia is that the ongoing work is not sufficient, and that is also said against the background of the changed geopolitical situation. Therefore, I want to ask, Madam Speaker, if Minister for Energy and Enterprise Ebba Busch is ready to take the initiative for a national innovation strategy.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ebba Busch, for the answer to my interpellation! As Aida Birinxhiku said, we have debated these questions a few times before. A lot has happened since then.
I would like to dwell a little on the Global Innovation Index. As Ebba Busch also noted, Sweden is ranked very high. We are second in the world and have actually, since 2019, never ranked below third place, which is welcome and a testament to the fact that our innovation ecosystem is strong. But we are losing in essential parts. Not least, we see that in many cases our companies do not manage to move from the startup phase to the scaleup phase. Between the years 2020 and 2024, we lost 8.4 percent in volume of investments in early funding rounds, which means that the companies have either gone bankrupt or moved abroad.
The government has provided a welcome supplement to the universities' holding companies in the budget, but many of them lack the competence required to safeguard intangible assets and innovation. We see that cooperation with and inclusion of Vinnova is completely central for this to work better and for research results to be commercialized. Unfortunately, the government does not see that.
Madam Speaker! In the technological transition that is occurring, countries such as the USA, China, and the United Kingdom are positioning themselves by investing powerfully in their innovation ecosystems. In the EU, a collective approach is now being taken to stand strong in the tough global competition. The Omnibus package intended to improve the EU's regulatory framework has been presented, but above all, a competitiveness fund is being developed that will be completely central and strategically important in the EU's industrial finance policy. Within this, there are several initiatives.
I would like to dwell on the IPCEI framework, which enables projects that go beyond the otherwise rather strict state aid rules at the EU level. We see that alliances are already being formed between member states to enable these various projects in their own countries. Unfortunately, we see that Sweden is not part of any of the projects that have been approved recently, and far too few applications are pending. It is quite surprising given that Sweden was part of two of the initial projects, which concerned batteries.
We see that when alliances are formed that Sweden stands outside of, important innovations in Sweden risk missing out on major investments that would strengthen both our sovereignty and our competitiveness.
Madam Speaker! I would say that the EU is ready. One knows how important it is to invest in innovations and ensure that we are forward-looking in an increasingly tougher competition. But it is also important that the Swedish perspective gains traction in the European Union, because we are a leading innovation country that has much to contribute.
For many years, we have done the right things by, for example, investing in research and innovation at our educational institutions and facilitating cooperation between politics, the business sector, and academia. We have created consortia such as Big Science Sweden and Swedish Scaleups to collectively provide good conditions for highly innovative companies to access networks and resources. All of this exists, but now a direction for the policy was needed, which my colleague Aida Birinxhiku pointed out.
I want to raise a warning finger regarding the high proportion of scaleup companies that do not succeed in Sweden. It does not bode well for where we will stand in the future. In this regard, I want to ask the Minister if she intends to deliver an answer on how Sweden can ensure that more companies can scale up here and if she sees that more can be done from the government's side to enable more IPCEI projects in Sweden that safeguard Swedish innovations.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! There were many relevant follow-up questions from my colleagues here in the chamber. I will begin with the question regarding a Swedish innovation strategy.
I maintain my answer that I am not a militant opponent of this, but can see advantages with it. But I think we have reason to feel a bit stressed. We are going to feel the competition. We must not take our position for granted, which I have pointed out on several occasions when we have had reason to debate together here in the chamber. This truly applies to what, among other things, Aida Birinxhiku raised regarding the area of life science and AI. That makes me constantly look for which way is best to move the issues forward.
Then we have the question of whether we should develop a unified Swedish innovation strategy. We must have a unified strategy, but since we last debated this, a lot has happened, which both members here in the chamber also mentioned. I am afraid that if we continue in the same old Swedish tracks and spend a lot of time developing a new strategy, the playing field will have been partially redrawn before one has even had a chance to make a decision on the strategy. That is my fear, and that is what makes me hold back a little.
The government has therefore instead pointed out six strategically important technology areas: artificial intelligence and autonomous systems, advanced digital technology including semiconductors, quantum technology, energy technology, materials and production technology, and biotechnology. I count that as almost seven. These are crucially important technology areas.
In addition to that, we have given Rise increased opportunities for test and demonstration environments to promote the possibility of moving from startup to scaleup. It is an important part to be able to test the possibility for commercialization. But in addition to that, coordinated support was needed so that one can move forward to the scaleup phase.
Vinnova remains crucial in that. We differ on how the government navigated the issue at the beginning of the mandate period. I maintain that it was right to make a heavy prioritization on the defense parts of innovation. The goal with how we have adjusted the three-year mandate for Vinnova is a more efficient, transparent support system for young, innovative companies. Sweden currently has one of the strongest capital markets when it comes to, among other things, fintech. We must safeguard that, and we shall look further into what more we can do in the area.
I would like to conclude by pointing to Denmark and a question that came up in a meeting just a few days ago. If I may be critical of how Sweden as a country has succeeded historically and also how we are now navigating these issues, my experience is that we sometimes have an over-reliance on our large strategic processes. Denmark has gone quite straight ahead. For example, they have now identified eleven new industrial parks that will enable collective processes for company establishments. All of this is combined with one-stop-shop solutions for the companies.
It has its disadvantages. I have followed some of the criticism in Denmark. But it is more of that kind of decisiveness that I am calling for. I would gladly join forces with the members to see how we can continue to safeguard our position as one of the world's most innovative countries.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Energy and Business, for the answer!
There is a lot to go through here, but I will try to concretize my questions. I will start with the need for an innovation strategy.
What I find difficult to understand is that the Minister, on the one hand, speaks of the need for a unified and strategic initiative, and on the other hand, is not prepared to do so in the form of a national innovation strategy. It is quite obvious, I believe, that the work that has been carried out during the mandate period is not sufficient. The Minister argues that a lot has happened. I do not know if she is referring to the R&D bill, which points to the need for a strategic direction but does not map it out itself, or if the Minister is referring to the industrial strategy from last summer. It is, I would say, more a list of already made decisions and ongoing work than a roadmap forward.
Madam Speaker! The Minister is still answerable. How is the government going to take a holistic approach? The holistic approach that Daniel and I are talking about spans the entire field from basic research to commercialization and utilization. Sweden has a strong research base, and we have pointed that out several times in this and in previous debates. But we need to become much better at converting it into new technical solutions. We have great potential that we must be able to utilize much better and not hold back, as the Minister stated.
Madam Speaker! Let us talk about more issues than a pure innovation strategy. A central part of the work is how we manage our intellectual assets. Even here, we need to become much better at managing our knowledge-based assets in a better way. It is good that the government has appointed a working group, but given the challenges that exist, it is far from sufficient.
In my first speech, I referred to a report from Iva. Now, I would also like to refer to Iva's preliminary study on a national intellectual property strategy. It points out 23 concrete proposals that could enable us to manage our knowledge-based assets in a much better way.
There are several proposals that we Social Democrats have also championed. One that I particularly want to highlight is the possibility of a fast track for patent applications within green technology. There are, after all, several other countries that we compete with in the field of innovation. Another proposal is how we can use our patent information in a much better way. There is incredibly valuable knowledge here that could help us study development trends all around the world, accelerate certain innovations, and avoid double research.
So there is a great deal to be done, Madam Speaker. I have no problem looking at what is happening in other countries. On the contrary, I encourage the Minister to do so. I also encourage the Minister to look more at the intellectual property strategy that Denmark has developed. I believe that it could constitute a good basis.
Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about strategic technology areas. The Minister seems to uphold the heavy cuts that occurred at Vinnova. It has, of course, affected the work. It is good that excellence clusters have now been established and been tasked to propose strategically important technology areas. This could constitute an important knowledge base for a national innovation strategy.
Let me summarize my questions, Madam Speaker. Why is the Minister not prepared to present a strategy when it is needed more than ever? How will the government proceed with the working group on intellectual property rights? And how will work proceed with the assignment to Vinnova regarding strategically important technology areas?
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I too would like to begin by delving a little into what was said by Ebba Busch in the previous contribution.
The government, of course, is making various initiatives to get companies to scale up. Vinnova was mentioned here, but I did not intend to dwell on the instability that existed and the cuts that were made at the beginning of the mandate period, even though I think they were completely wrong. We see that Vinnova today has support. That is good, even though we Social Democrats want to see greater support for Vinnova and various innovation ecosystems.
The problem is that a very large amount of the support from Vinnova today goes to basic research. Vinnova needs much more funds to ensure that research results can be commercialized. That is where the problem lies. There is a very large amount of money for basic research, but there are far too few funds to ensure that companies can get out onto the market.
Regarding the other questions with a connection to the EU that I raised quite a bit in my previous speech, such as for example IPCEI, I received no answers on how this can be made possible. We in the Socialdemokraterna have since the mandate period began proposed that more projects should be enabled in order to be able to get more IPCEI to Sweden.
One might provide some information about IPCEI. I have asked Ebba Busch about this, and we also had a debate about it about two years ago. It is about a strategic compass to strengthen Europe's industrial future by counteracting fragmentation, promoting cross-border cooperation between the member states, and also promoting innovation that is of strategic importance for the entire union. One must still say that it is a uniquely tailored response to the aggressive industrial policy pursued by competing economies – to strategically use public funds to strengthen our technological sovereignty.
So, Madam Speaker, there are several funding opportunities. Another one that I know the Minister has worked with is Horizon Europe, which is the EU's largest innovation program, where there are 95 billion euros to apply for.
But the problem is that Sweden performs among the worst. We are worse than the average when it comes to applications, and we are worse even when it comes to approved applications. Finland receives three times as much money as Sweden even though their population is only about half of ours.
Bizmaker in Sundsvall and Rise produced a preliminary study that looked at what this could be due to. One of the things that was established was that we do not ensure that we have strengthened means to build consortia in the EU and to have people and environments that can provide support for such applications.
Madam Speaker! I would like to know what the government's plan is to bring home more funds from the EU. When public funds are to be targeted, which is necessary because the market under-invests in this type of risk, a risk-sharing between the state and the business sector is needed, and in that work, a direction is required. Most are broadly in agreement on what we need to invest in. It is about quantum physics, AI, 6G, biotech, and investments in our deep tech companies. Then this direction is needed.
The geopolitical world situation has indeed made corporate support a security issue. The USA subsidizes, and China subsidizes. If we do not support companies through a strategic use of funds, production will move and technology will disappear, and we will lose control over important value chains. I would like to say that the support for scaleups is fundamentally a matter of industrial sovereignty.
So, Madam Speaker, there are many parts to piece together here. But I would like to have answers on how we enable more IPCEI projects and what the Minister's plan is to bring home more EU funds to fundamentally ensure that our innovation policy is translated into a strategy that takes advantage of Swedish innovations.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will do my best to address some of the follow-up questions.
Firstly, there are many parts that we now choose to take forward in different ways. We have made investments in technical infrastructure with increased grants to Rise, which I have pointed out in various contexts. We have the Advanced Digitalization program, which involves co-financing from the business sector for research and digital technology and co-financing from the EU program Digital Europe. It is about giving companies better access to advanced digital technical infrastructure, which many times means that smaller and startup companies also have the opportunity to access such things that allow them to punch above their weight class, so to speak.
Speaking of punching above one's weight: There is also evidence indicating that Sweden is good at securing funding from the EU regarding green and innovative initiatives. I would like to see us get better at this. This is something that companies often point out in the dialogues and meetings I have. It takes a very long time; it is complicated. Several of them have themselves chosen to go other ways.
But it is clear that Sweden, which is also a net payer in the EU system, must be careful that these funds come home. That is why I have sometimes in the Swedish debate defended myself quite strongly against those who think it has been bad that various individual industrial initiatives, for example, have received a share of funds through industrial steps, climate steps, and other such measures, and think that this is a waste of tax money. I have, on the contrary, thought that it would be a waste of tax money if Sweden, which is a net contributor in the EU system, did not ensure that these tax funds come back to Sweden and are used for heavy and important industrial establishments here.
I want to raise another aspect that has not been brought up as much in the debate, namely the question of responsible internationalization. Sweden has previously had a naivety regarding how open our systems have been. This has partly served us well, but it has also resulted in us being exposed to industrial espionage. Valuable intangible assets have been stolen from our country. Here, there are now completely different conditions through the assignment we have given to the Swedish Council for Higher Education, the Swedish Research Council, and Vinnova: to ensure that we receive guidelines for this and that we can build support systems that help actors make informed and secure choices in international collaborations.
This leads me to the question of strategy. I want to state clearly that I do not rule out that another strategy is developed in this area. But we have a strategy, even if it is not formulated in that kind of paper. This gives us an opportunity to continuously incorporate good ideas. The question of fast-tracks for patents is one that has been up for discussion and which is being raised in the debate here. Even there, many advantages can be seen.
But regarding strategy, it has now been a conscious strategy from Sweden to point out a number of countries with whom we share basic values and want to build strategic partnerships and coherent value chains. I came home quite recently from a state visit to Canada, where we entered into just such a comprehensive strategic partnership that also extends to research and innovation for a stronger business sector. I think this is a good way to put into action the plans and goals for strengthened innovation power in Sweden.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Energy and Industry for this debate! Since this is my final speech, I would like to interject that I did not quite receive answers to all my previous questions. But I hope that the Minister can return to these in his next speech.
In any case, I would like to thank you for this debate. It is not often that questions about innovation and growth dominate the news headlines. But we must not forget that when the geopolitical playing field changes and we face new technological shifts, new opportunities also arise for Sweden. We have the expertise, the natural resources, and the innovative solutions.
But we must also show political leadership. We must show that we want the investments, the jobs, and the prosperity to end up in Sweden. We are not doing that right now, Madam Speaker, when we have representatives for the government base who would rather engage in culture wars than substantive politics and who would rather focus on everything other than solving real problems – such as the fact that we have unemployment that is at a record high, a growth at the bottom of the EU, and, as said, great challenges when it comes to Swedish innovative power and competitiveness.
Therefore, we must be able to think further than to the next election. We must have an idea of what we shall live off in the future and how we create tomorrow's jobs and prosperity. That is what this interpellation debate is about.
Madam Speaker! To try to tie up the bag: Sweden has long been a leading innovation country, but that does not mean we can lean back, especially not against the background of the situation we find ourselves in right now. I hope and also get the impression that the Minister for Energy and Industry shares that picture. I look forward to continuing to debate these issues at another occasion.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I also want to thank you for the debate. I love debating innovation policy with Ebba Busch. I know that she does too.
I would still like to respond a bit regarding this matter of Industriklivet and about providing public support. Not doing so is a waste of taxpayers' money. I completely agree on that point. As Aida Birinxhiku pointed out, however, it is not everyone in Ebba Busch's government support who agrees on that. We see that now.
Ebba Busch chose to highlight Industriklivet, which I think is a fantastic measure that has been quite targeted towards just scaleups. Those companies have been able to participate in Industriklivet in a way that allows exactly them to grow. But in the government's budget, almost all the support that has gone through just Industriklivet disappears. It is deeply regrettable. If one speaks with growth companies that want to scale up, they mention exactly this as something that will hit the Swedish industry hard.
As I said in my previous post, Madam Speaker, the Swedish industry and the investments we make are about our sovereignty in a situation of geopolitical tensions. I agree with the Minister that we need to position ourselves. The problem is, however, that we are not doing so.
I would also like to emphasize how important this is for Swedish jobs. The jobs of the future lie in the technologies of the future. The reasons why we are in the situation we are in, with innovations and the race, are actually two. The first is that the whole world has realized that the prosperity of the future lies in groundbreaking technology – in the green transition and in such investments within healthcare as life science. The second is that we have a geopolitical situation that places demands on self-sufficiency and preparedness. If we are to manage to stand strong, have resilience, and manage the climate crisis that is here and now, we must also invest in these companies. Otherwise, we will not see Swedish jobs. We will see increasingly declining growth, and it will make Sweden poorer.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro and Aida Birinxhiku for the interpellations and for this debate. I will conclude by answering a bit more broadly and summarizing what we are emphasizing regarding this area.
We are talking about the largest research and innovation proposal ever in Sweden's history. The second is the decisive value of clearly identified strategic technology areas and new excellence clusters. It is about reinforced technology infrastructure, where Rise and others are an important part that can reduce the gap from research to market. Collective support for startups and scaleups and new industrial partnerships provide more growing innovative companies. In addition, there are stronger tools for economic security and intellectual property rights that protect sensitive knowledge and Swedish interests.
I am very pleased with the commitment to these issues. As I see it, entrepreneurship and research have now become a decisive part of the defense. Entrepreneurship and research are also a decisive part of the belief in the future in an otherwise rather dark and gloomy world.
I think we should be totally devoid of prestige when it comes to picking good examples from other countries. Some of them have been highlighted by all three of us here in the chamber today. We shall also be devoid of prestige when it comes to putting Sweden's best before party-political prestige.
We have listened to and taken note of the good suggestions that have been raised here. They have also been submitted by other referral bodies.
With this, I wish you a Merry Christmas. I thank you for this debate and look forward to what we can do more in this area during the next year.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.