The ban on uranium mining is removed

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! When I was a little boy and grew up in Malmö, I could see the Barsebäck power plant on the other side of Lommabukten. For me, who was born in the coal-powered and smoggy London, a city I visited several times during my upbringing, the Barsebäck power plant and Swedish nuclear power were the very image of Sweden as a modern, clean, and high-tech country. Everyone who has ever visited a country where one has relied on large-scale coal power probably understands exactly what I am talking about.

Sweden invested in the future during the 70s and 80s. Twelve reactors were built at a rapid pace. That our Swedish nuclear power would cause such lively debate that it led to a referendum was difficult for me to understand. The referendum was held in the spring of 1980, when I was nine years old. It was then and there that my political interest was awakened. At just nine years old, I realized that politics is important and affects my and the country's future. It is actually not without me wondering what that little nine-year-old would have said if someone had told him that 45 years later he would be standing here in the Riksdag's speaker's podium debating the repeal of the ban on uranium extraction. It is a dizzying thought.

But now we are there. Now we are finally on our way to abolishing a very strange and bad prohibition legislation, which Miljöpartiet with the willing help of Socialdemokraterna pushed through in 2018. They prohibited the mining of uranium even though no such mining in the true sense had occurred in Sweden for several decades – at that time, it also took place with completely different technology and under completely different environmental legislation. They simply prohibited a non-problem in their eagerness to make things difficult for Sweden as a nuclear power nation.

The fact that Sweden had long imported all its nuclear fuel was of no importance. Uranium mining was to be prohibited at all costs, as was prospecting for this so commonly occurring element in the bedrock.

It also did not matter if the decision had negative consequences for the rest of the prospecting and mining industry. That the industry argued that the ban made it more difficult – and more expensive – to prospect for so-called rare earth metals was simply not cared about.

That is exactly how it is, Madam Speaker – uranium is an important lead metal in the pursuit of other metals and minerals, which are often needed for precisely the technology that the uranium opponents so eagerly tend to applaud.

In the years that followed, Sweden sank like a stone in the Fraser Institute's ranking of mining nations' attractiveness to invest in. After a number of years with Social Democrats and Green Party members at the helm, Sweden had lost around 30 positions in the said ranking. We went from being comparable with modern mining nations in the democratic part of the world to struggling with mining nations with questionable systems of government in the third world. The decline is, in my opinion, a completely unacceptable failure for Sweden as a mining nation. And no, it certainly was not only the introduction of the uranium ban that led there. Of course, it was due to a number of factors, but the signal value the decision had should nevertheless not be underestimated.

Now Sweden – thank goodness – has a much more nuclear power-friendly government. It is also very mining-friendly. The Tidö parties understand how important the mining industry is for Sweden. A conscious policy has led to the fact that Sweden now ranks sixth in the ranking I just referred to. That the policy pursued over the last three years has been significant for this is probably a given.

This is extremely important if one considers our enormous import dependence on metals and minerals, not least from China. If China were to choose to choke off its export of the metals and minerals that our society is built upon, what happens then? As a politician, I simply cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that we are extremely vulnerable today, as we import almost all raw materials from unfriendly countries.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to uranium, I believe it is entirely reasonable that Sweden, as a high-tech nuclear power nation, should have as a long-term goal to become self-sufficient, if possible, in the nuclear fuel we need for our own electricity production, not least against the background that we are now in a more unstable geopolitical situation than in several decades. A higher degree of self-sufficiency should be possible, as uranium deposits de facto exist in our bedrock. But this naturally presupposes that the deposits are profitable to mine and that it can occur on environmentally acceptable terms. That is why we have a strict Environmental Code and rigorous permit processes. We shall not compete with questionable environmental conditions. Like with all other mining, we shall be at the absolute international forefront – or not mine at all.

That we now lift the uranium ban does not likely mean that masses of mines with uranium as a primary raw material will be established overnight. The regulatory framework is always complex, and everyone who knows anything about mines in general knows that the path to establishing a new mine is long and winding. This will also apply in this case.

What will, on the other hand, become easier is prospecting for the metals and minerals that "hide" from prospectors behind uranium. What will also happen is that deposits where uranium constitutes a secondary resource will become more profitable and even extractable. No one can seriously mean in all honesty that it is reasonable that ore containing uranium is currently being mined, only to be placed in a landfill or buried back in the ground after the primary mineral has been extracted?

For me, it is obvious that the uranium should also be taken into account. In just that part of the reasoning, we Tidö parties thankfully seem to get agreement from C, which otherwise stands on the red-green parties' side in the issue of the uranium ban. I welcome that. I am, in fact, completely convinced that the decision to lift the so-called uranium ban will lead to new profitable value chains for AB Sverige, which is naturally good.

Madam Speaker! To once again make uranium a concession mineral is both logical and correct. If handled correctly by our licensing authorities and responsible, modern prospecting and mining companies, it can become truly good here.

I also want to take this opportunity to mention a detail that perhaps some of those who are concerned by today's debate and the upcoming parliamentary decision may not know. Today, the limit for how much uranium is allowed to be present in water affected by a mine is significantly lower than the limit allowed in our drinking water. So strict are the regulations that are applied in Sweden today. That does not mean that there are no challenges and risks. Such exist, just as with all other mining industries. But uranium mining in itself is not actually more dangerous than the mining of other metals and minerals that the Swedish mining industry successfully extracts day and night, all year round.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety and rejection of the motions.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I usually appreciate Eric Palmqvist and the Sweden Democrats for their clarity. I can agree with those parts of Eric Palmqvist's speech that concern secondary extraction. What he fails to mention is that the intention is to completely override the municipalities. The intention is to abruptly remove the local acceptance. Eric Palmqvist can reflect on that.

In the referral process, the relevant regions and municipalities have discarded this product along with the footknots. It has been thrown in the wastebasket and they have said: This is completely out of time.

Even those referral bodies that think this could be reasonable – Naturvårdsverket thinks that in some parts it could be reasonable – say that it is very unclear which activities may be affected. Therefore, one cannot assess the consequences of this product. SGU, which is fundamentally positive, says the same thing: It is unclear. One cannot assess the proposed adjustments in Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code or which mining activities may in the future be affected by this change.

This points to the big problem with the government's proposal: They are using thumbscrews. They are overriding and misleading the local level.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Isak From for, well, what shall I say? There were no questions. I expected that some concrete questions would be asked.

Knowing exactly which individual projects it concerns is difficult when one doesn't have a crystal ball. We will see that when the day comes when companies submit applications to carry out this activity. Knowing it in advance feels a bit odd. I interpreted what the member From said as that one does not know which projects this would encompass. That feels reasonable.

Since then, it is the case that there is a proposal in this that is to investigate the municipal veto. It has not been decided yet. But it is included and shall be treated further ahead if I have understood it correctly.

In any case, it is double legislation that is intended to be removed. We have the nuclear technology act to rely on. To adhere to that, which stipulates a limit of I believe 100 kilos, I think is perfectly reasonable.

We also have other legislation in Sweden where the government actually has the mandate to make decisions in matters concerning national interests. This is such a matter where the assessment is made that the government can make decisions.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Eric Palmqvist raised the memorandum that the government has sent out, which concerns the nuclear energy act. It points very clearly out that the municipal veto will disappear. The municipal influence over these issues will disappear, and therefore it is perhaps not so strange that the affected municipalities are quite upset.

Even Eric Palmqvist's home municipality, Gällivare, which is a strong mining municipality, questions – precisely based on the views of these referral bodies – which activities may be affected and how the municipalities are impacted. The same thing is done by the affected regions. Eric Palmqvist answers here: We have to see; we do not know that, rather a future government must decide on it. It is clear that it does not increase credibility. I do not think that the affected citizens in Falköping or Östersund think that it is something that will ensure their local influence.

Eric Palmqvist and the Sverigedemokraterna must therefore give this some thought. Now this is being announced, and as it looks, the affected municipal residents are being overridden. Is that reasonable, Madam Speaker?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have not looked at all the referral responses that different municipalities have submitted. I have looked at some, including the one from my home municipality, where I sit on the municipal executive board.

Our municipality is actually led by the Social Democrats and the Green Party, that is to say, two of the parties that are very opposed to this even in this assembly. It is therefore as clear as day that they will express themselves critically about this even during the referral process. It is also noteworthy that the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates opposed the referral response that was adopted. We had a different opinion there.

I think it might be like that in more municipalities. The Moderates, the Sweden Democrats and other Tidö parties may have a different view on this than those who are actually genuinely against uranium mining altogether.

I think I will stay there.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the speech!

I have a question regarding what Eric Palmqvist touched upon in his speech concerning the degree of self-sufficiency, namely that the Sweden Democrats would in the long run like to see Sweden become self-sufficient in uranium.

We have very low levels of uranium in our deposits in Sweden. In the operations that existed in Ranstad, just over 200 tons were extracted over a five-year period. We use 2,000 tons of uranium per year in our current nuclear power plants in Sweden, and the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind the fact that we should have even more.

That is why I wonder a bit about the Sweden Democrats' vision for the future of Sweden. How do you view the enormous open-pit mines that might be needed to extract all the uranium that we would, in that case, need? Do you see any risks for food supply and drinking water sources, that is to say, what many municipal residents are flagging today together with, for example, LRF?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the questions! They are very relevant questions.

Yes, we have a fairly low concentration of uranium in Sweden, and that – unfortunately, I must say – is in a bedrock where it is technically extremely complicated to mine alunschist if one wants to do it in an environmentally correct way. It is extremely complicated, and today there are few who can credibly even say that they can do it in a way that is acceptable under Swedish legislation.

The goal, however, must still be that we can do this, with new extraction technology and new enrichment technology that allow us to use these low grades. One can compare it with, for example, the Aitik mine, which has an exceptionally low copper grade. It is a lower copper grade in the ore there than in that which ends up in the tailings in some African mines, and yet it is an incredibly profitable company. It is a flourishing copper company.

There is actually nothing that says we cannot end up there with the uranium as well. It is obviously a target, but it is something that requires great innovative power from the industry, which must do this both in a profitable way and in a way that is acceptable from an environmental point of view.

I see that my speaking time is running out. The member had a question also regarding agriculture and concerns regarding that. If I do not receive more challenging questions, I will answer it in my next reply.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Eric Palmqvist!

Even if one had a new technology to extract all uranium molecules, I think that it would still be very large masses of rock that must be used to extract the uranium. There will be large open-pit mines, and they will change people's immediate environment. Therefore, I wonder about the same thing that Isak From was touching upon, that is, the municipal veto.

In this step, the municipal veto is weakened by allowing smaller operations with smaller amounts of uranium extraction, and in the next step, they intend to remove the municipal veto. Is it not reasonable that people should be allowed to express themselves and can put a stop to projects that can have such an enormous impact on their immediate environment for many lifetimes to come?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the questions!

I actually intend to back up to where we were earlier regarding food supply. Again: Alunschist, which we are also partially debating today, is – unfortunately, one might say – often located under fertile agricultural land. I understand the concern that is expressed, and I think one should be responsive to it.

We find ourselves in a global situation where many things feel uncertain, and in that context, food production is naturally a central issue. I myself come from a constituency where we would quickly become very hungry if we did not have contact with southern Sweden through main railway lines and the like. Food production in Norrbotten is alarmingly small – and that is actually the case in many places in Sweden.

These trade-offs must be constantly and consistently made. Regardless of how we use our land, there are conflicts surrounding land use. It could be defense, it could be reindeer husbandry, and it could be the mining industry. It could be all possible different special interests that must in some way be taken into account, and so it is also in this case.

I am completely convinced that the number of projects within large-scale mining industry that would start up as a result of this decision would not be drastically much larger than the processes we already have linked to the mining industry, but I would welcome it if it became at least a few more mines.

Since then, it is the case that in many places there are relatively superficial deposits. Yes, larger areas are put into use, but one can also work with backfilling. This happens in some cases, that is, one backfills the ground, puts in fertilizers and so on. It makes the land into even better agricultural land than before it was claimed for mining.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! The previous debate that the Committee on Civil Affairs had dealt quite a lot with local and municipal influence. That, Madam Speaker, is what this debate does as well.

The SD-led Tidö government has built its entire industrial policy on the construction of new nuclear power. They have failed to do anything in almost all other industrial policy areas. This is reflected in records of bankruptcies and mass unemployment. We can add that in the budget proposal we will debate later, they cut Industriklivet and green credits, something that the industry is requesting because other European industries are given these conditions that this government basis does not want to give our Swedish industry.

In the mining area, the Tidö Government has indeed proceeded with the investigation commissioned by S regarding Natura 2000 permits and presented it as a proposal for a new law, which we have supported. We welcome that. Otherwise, it is distressing to see the government basis come here with such a substandard product in such an important issue.

We are now discussing the Committee on Industry's report 7, which concerns the removal of the ban on uranium extraction. I move, Madam Speaker, for the rejection of the bill according to reservation 1. I also move for the approval of reservation 2. Normally, we only move for the approval of one reservation, but in this case, we believe it is extremely important. The first reservation is actually backed by four parties as well.

Madam Speaker! Uranium mining in Sweden has long been considered unprofitable. Sweden's bedrock is generally rich in uranium. We have quite a lot of uranium spread across large parts of the country. However, it is in relatively small quantities. Therefore, we can probably best see that this is of symbolic significance.

What is being done is to scale away the local acceptance for the mining industry in a process by highlighting in two steps that one wants to remove the municipal veto when it comes to uranium mines. This makes the local population in affected municipalities extremely upset, and rightly so.

What is being done now is a minor change. However, it has been signaled, in the memorandum that has been sent out for consultation, that it is intended to amend the nuclear technology act and remove the municipal veto. As I raised in my previous exchange of remarks, the consultation bodies cannot see the consequences of this. We are therefore going to a vote this afternoon and pressing the button with consequences we cannot see. That, Madam Speaker, is most remarkable.

Madam Speaker! A mine, especially a uranium mine in alumschist, creates great concern. The government has also chosen to postpone the question of risk assessment to future trials, which further shows that they have not thought through the consequences of their actions. As several instances point out, it is difficult, practically impossible, to oversee the consequences. It is primarily what makes us motion for a rejection of the government's proposition – that the referral bodies, even those who are fundamentally positive about the uranium extraction ban being removed, cannot see what consequences this will have in the future.

Madam Speaker! The SD-led Tidö government risks, in the long run, the social trust. It counteracts the development of the Swedish mining industry. It is sad. It is bad. It is bad for Swedish self-sufficiency. It is bad for Swedish industry.

We need to increase interest in metals and minerals, but we need to do it in such a way that we involve the affected local population. The relocation of the town that is taking place in Kiruna would never have been possible if one did not have a fairly strong faith in the mining industry and an understanding that the company LKAB needs to do this. There is a trust in the mining industry. We must protect it and cherish it. We shall support those mining municipalities that actually step up for everyone in our society.

We Social Democrats discussed this issue at our congress this spring and reached a very clear decision. We have made a rethink in our policy and see that we need to allow secondary extraction of uranium in order to enable the utilization of the by-products that are mined in existing mines.

We must also be able to utilize the purified process water. It is a question that does not actually belong to the report. But it is so, Madam Speaker, that the Swedish bedrock consists of quite a lot of uranium, which means that we have quite a lot of uranium in the process water. If one has a lot of uranium in the water that is taken into the process, it also affects the mining process. This affects the permit process now, not least LKAB's permit process in Malmberget and in Gällivare.

The government now says that there is a process underway to resolve this. HaV's target value in the area has so far closed Gåsgruvan in Värmland and made impossible or delayed other permit processes. Here, the government has an important issue to address so that we can keep the activities that already have permits running.

Madam Speaker! I have been a member of Parliament for nearly 16 years. I have been approached regarding a multitude of issues such as wolves, forests, and the conditions for small municipalities, issues where ordinary people have been squeezed. People reach out and think that politics should act. I have rarely experienced anything similar to when we are now discussing the issue of opening up for uranium mines. It has been a constant flood of emails, phone calls, SMS messages, and posts on social media pleading with us politicians to think about it, do the right thing, and not open up for legislation that threatens our groundwater and drinking water.

(Applause)

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the contribution to the debate, which I believe will continue to be quite spirited here during the afternoon.

I thought I would make a small point regarding this with business policy, which Isak From called for from the Tidöregeringen. Isak From claimed that the government had done nothing in the business policy area. In that case, I thought I would mention a few things: the regulatory simplification council, the implementation council, farm sales, the abolition of hotel permits, the abolition of dance permits, the 3:12 rules which simplify and lower costs for around 60,000 companies, simplified permit processes, acceleration offices, as well as the abolition of the requirement to save receipts physically, which also leads to reduced administration and reduced costs.

This has been done in three years. What did the Social Democratic government do during eight years to promote Swedish business?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Eric Palmqvist for the questions.

Obviously, we Social Democrats did something that worked better. The large number of bankruptcies that have characterized this parliamentary term has been historical. Unemployment has never been so high, and the willingness to invest in Sweden has dropped drastically.

It is serious if Sweden's government does not point out that one believes in Swedish industry and in these investments and if one consistently says no to enabling offshore wind power on the west coast to meet the needs of both the automotive industry and the chemical industry. Then the status quo and farm sales may become slightly smaller issues. They may end up being cut in.

It is clear that it is important for us Social Democrats that there are operations and companies with several thousand employees that contribute to Sweden's welfare. The tax revenues from those operations can build the country strong. That is what is important for us.

(Applause)

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, if we are talking about unemployment, I can say that the figures in the statistics can be broken down quite a lot. One can break them down into molecules, but then we end up in a migration policy debate. That is not what we are going to conduct here in the chamber today.

When it comes to the sums that are paid into the collective, i.e., taxes, they come primarily from the private business sector. That is where money is generated. The social sector is funded by the taxes that the private business sector gives rise to. That is the model we have; we fund social services with the help of the public funds that the workforce in the private, profit-driven business sector injects into the system.

I thought I would go back to another point. Member From pointed out that the Social Democrats, according to a congress decision, are for secondary smelting. I welcome that. It is perfectly reasonable.

Since Member From pointed out the question of the limit values for uranium in wastewater versus the limit values that apply for drinking water. It was something that I also mentioned in my speech. Certainly, it complicates things, but it also points to something. It points to the fact that we in Myndighetssverige have set the limits for what environmental impact is reasonable extremely low – lower than what we consider acceptable to drink and have in the municipal water taps.

My question is whether the member From does not trust Swedish environmental legislation and the Environmental Code.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! It is very clear that during this parliamentary term, the government agency, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, has lowered the limit value for uranium in leachate and in groundwater to an extremely low level, far below what is stated in the National Food Agency's guidelines. We have discussed this. I have had debates with Romina Pourmokhtari on that issue.

The consequence is that under this government, several mines have not been granted permits.

The consequence is that we import lime from Turkey to northern Sweden and northern Finland instead of mining it on Gotland.

The consequences of the government's policy are more bankruptcies and more unemployed people, which is a cost for society. Instead of having a job to go to, they must receive benefits via unemployment insurance and, in the long run, perhaps via social services. It is a cost for society, as opposed to if those people had been gotten into jobs.

Madam Speaker! There is a very big difference between us and the Sweden Democrats on this issue.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report on removing the ban on the extraction of uranium.

It is not about starting large-scale mining of uranium at every forest edge, but rather about restoring the possibility of testing exploration permits where there is a certain amount of uranium, under the same strict rules that apply to other minerals in Sweden.

The ban was introduced in 2018 and made uranium the only element in Sweden that is illegal to extract. It was never an environmentally motivated measure but a political statement. The result has been that, in practice, the extraction of even other important metals and minerals such as vanadium, cobalt, and rare earth elements is being hindered because they often occur together with uranium.

The Moderates believe that legislation should be logical, technology-neutral, and responsible. Allowing the examination of mining projects where uranium levels are present does not mean that anything is approved automatically. Every operation must, just as today, undergo examination according to the Environmental Code and the Mining Act. Sweden has some of the world's strictest environmental requirements, and we will continue to have them.

I also want to say early on that I understand that many people feel anxiety regarding mining, anxiety for the water, anxiety for nature, and anxiety for the living environment and the home environment. That anxiety is human and natural and must be taken seriously. We all share, to some extent, the responsibility to protect our nature and ensure that development occurs in a safe manner. But it is precisely for that reason that we have a robust assessment system. Decisions on environment and safety shall rest on facts and expert assessments and not on political whims.

Madam Speaker! In this room, we have a responsibility to look further than just the next parliamentary term. Europe today imports almost all uranium and the majority of the critical metals needed for everything from the climate transition to the defense industry – and that from countries that do not share our values. If Sweden wants and shall be part of the solution and not part of the dependency, we must dare to take responsibility for our own resources in a secure and sustainable way.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish ban on opening mines where there is uranium has caused investments in prospecting and research to stall. Sweden, which has historically been a mining nation and a supplier of raw materials to all of Europe, has fallen behind while the dependence on imports has increased. We are now in a situation where Europe imports up to 98 percent of its critical metals. This is used as leverage in global trade and security relations.

For my party, Moderaterna, issues of self-sufficiency, resilience, and technological independence are part of the analysis that underlies our position in the committee report. In Europe, a quarter of the world's raw materials are consumed, but only 3 percent are produced here. It is not long-term sustainable.

Madam Speaker! Modern society is built on metals and minerals. It concerns everything from mobile phones and electric car batteries to hospital equipment, power grids, and defense technology. The critical minerals and metals come from the mine first. Sweden has great access to these substances, but paradoxically, today we are almost entirely dependent on imports, and much of it comes from countries where environmental requirements, working conditions, and the rule of law are far below the Swedish level. If access is also used as a tool for pressure, it is not only the green transition that stops here, but also the development of healthcare, industry, and defense.

Those who oppose the change that the government proposes today may have a point, but the result unfortunately is that problems are pushed onto other countries without us achieving any balance between sustainability and growth.

Madam Speaker! Another important aspect of the government's proposal concerns the possibility of secondary extraction, i.e., utilizing uranium as a byproduct when extracting other metals. The secondary extraction is the Swedish extraction. Those who say that they do not oppose secondary extraction are, in practice, for the extraction of uranium in Sweden.

Today, Swedish mining companies are forced to leave behind or deposit uranium, even though it would be fully possible to handle it in a safe manner. This is inefficient. It increases costs and leads to larger amounts of waste. It is also a waste of resources that we may need in the future.

If it is possible to handle more subjects in the same process, reduce waste and at the same time strengthen self-sufficiency, it is both environmentally and economically wise to do so. The combination of technology, environmental consideration and innovative power should not be underestimated. It is that which builds Swedish industry strong. Removing the ban on extracting uranium as a byproduct is therefore a step towards a smarter and more sustainable Swedish mining industry.

Madam Speaker! Let me briefly dwell on a few points that I am convinced other parties will also mention today.

Firstly: Much of the debate over the past few weeks has been about mining alunite. It is worth reminding that it is already possible today. However, there are requirements to undergo a specific suitability assessment to mine alunite. That requirement will remain. It is not something we are addressing here today.

In local media around the country, certain parties, such as the Socialdemokraterna, have stated that they want to ban the mining of alum shale. But if we read in the joint reservation of the Socialdemokraterna and Centerpartiet, there are no proposals for such a ban, and it is good that one is clear about that. And even though the alum shale involves special risks, the provisions of the Environmental Code and the Swedish environmental permit process with strict limit values are applicable and sufficient.

Secondly: No mining of critical metals and minerals in alunschist occurs in Sweden today. Nor has it historically occurred to a large extent. Furthermore, no pure uranium mining occurs in Sweden today. Historical mining in alunschist and mining of uranium took place under different environmental requirements, following different permit processes and with different extraction methods than those that exist today. How Tage Erlander's government could approve the Ranstad mine in the 60s without having proper environmental legislation in place is difficult to understand. The neighbors are still paying the price, and no one wants to end up there again.

Thirdly: Removing the ban on uranium mining does not make environmentally hazardous mines permissible. All potential mines must undergo an environmental assessment and prove that the mining can be conducted safely in order to be established. Furthermore, the company must prove that the mine is economically sustainable so that we can avoid unserious actors. Finally, a financial guarantee must be provided if environmentally hazardous waste must be handled – safety measures, in other words. It is justified with safety measures when mining deposits that may contain mercury, cadmium, arsenic, zinc, copper, and a little uranium.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long history as a mining nation. It has built our welfare, our industry, and our independence. Now we face a new era where the metals that once shaped the old industrial society are also the key to the transition. By removing the ban on opening mines where there is uranium and restoring the possibility of testing, we show that Sweden can think long-term. We take responsibility for our own supply of critical metals. We strengthen our competitiveness. We stand up for the logical principle that equal cases shall be treated equally.

This, I want to say, is not a straightforward simple question. There is concern. We must take that seriously. But the task of politics is not to nourish the concern or fan the flames of fear, but to build trust in our laws, our authorities, and our ability as a country to combine environmental considerations and development. Sweden shall not choose between sustainability and growth. We shall have both. We shall continue to show the rest of the world that it is possible with responsibility, knowledge, and faith in the future. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jesper Skalberg Karlsson for the speech.

I have read the Moderaternas reservation from when the ban on uranium mining was introduced in 2018. At that time, they leaned on the fact that the municipal veto made the legislation sufficient. Therefore, it was not necessary to introduce any ban on uranium mining. Now, the municipal veto is being removed in two steps while uranium mining is being allowed. Now I wonder: What is it that has caused the Moderaterna to change their opinion on the importance of a strong regulation of uranium mining? Is a need seen to override municipalities moving forward?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Luhr for the question.

What we are dealing with today is about allowing permits for mining where there are low levels of uranium. There seems to be quite broad support for it. It is, as said, about when uranium is truly to be considered a byproduct.

Parallel to that, there is a memorandum out for consultation. The consultation period expires on Saturday, November 8, and a processing shall take place during the spring. We will, of course, take into account the consultation responses that come in and process them in a responsible manner, but it is not possible today to say exactly where that processing will land or when it will be completed.

I note, however, that there is a scale for how extensive a municipal veto should be. There is, for example, a clear difference between a nuclear facility where atoms are split and a mine where uranium is picked up with a bucket. Presumably, there are reasons to view these things differently, but exactly where the treatment lands, I cannot answer today.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have very low levels of uranium in deposits in Sweden, which I touched upon in my previous question. Jesper Skalberg Karlsson also pointed out that we need to increase our self-sufficiency when it comes to uranium. It will require enormously large open-pit mines where we extract the uranium we want to use.

It becomes very clear for those who live in municipalities that have uranium deposits in their surrounding area that an intervention through such an open-pit mine will make an incredibly big difference in their living environments. It is therefore important to stick to the municipal veto so that one can have a say regarding the area where one lives.

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson points out that the mining must take place in an environmentally safe way and that a lot has happened since the Ranstad mine opened. But accidents have still occurred in several mines in the surrounding area that have had high environmental legislation. There, both toxic heavy metals and uranium have leaked into nearby watercourses, despite very high environmental legislation. I therefore wonder how we are to ensure that the mining becomes safe in the places that the Moderaterna now stand behind that we should push forward for?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is worth noting that it concerns a very small total area of Sweden as land when we talk about mining and mining activities. It may sound like mines are being opened in every little backyard, but it concerns half a per mille of Sweden's area. It is barely enough to cover the southern tip of Gotland.

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear that when I speak about self-sufficiency, it is about being able to mine rare earth metals and critical minerals and get them out of the ground so that we can also achieve economic development from it.

Uranium is primarily a byproduct, and it is natural that one does not place it in a landfill but uses it in a way that can be used sustainably. I do not believe that with today's technology and today's known deposits we will open large-scale mines where we extract only uranium. It is about enabling other mining and other extraction to strengthen our self-sufficiency when it comes to other metals.

But if one, as the Green Party argues, means that it should not be possible to break ground in any deposit where there are traces of uranium, we are on a slippery slope towards having no mining activity in Sweden. This is what we want to avoid with the proposal in this report.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jesper Skalberg, for the speech!

I have some questions where I would like to have a clarification linked to what Jesper Skalberg Karlsson mentioned in his speech, namely the importance of creating trust, confidence in legislation and so on. The member initiated his speech by speaking about the fact that there will not be a small uranium mine in every forest edge. And then Ranstadsverket was mentioned, and since I myself come from Billingen or Skaraborg, I see the great impact that occurred there and the memory that exists of everything that happened then. The member says that it will never be relevant again.

Before we had the legislation we have now, people sought out large areas in my home regions, and there were many exploratory drillings and so on. This created anything but trust among the people who live in these regions. Even though the member in the exchange just before said that it is such a small area in total, we are still talking about entire home regions when it comes to these open uranium mines, which the member, for his part, believes we will never be able to see but which one is now creating the possibility for.

I would therefore like to ask the question: In what way is this legislation going to create increased trust? One could actually make significantly simpler interventions in the legislation to address what I perceive as the main point of the member's argument, namely the secondary extraction, so that we can use what is picked up from the ground and do not need to place it in a landfill. Why is it necessary to remove this entire legislation and the ban on uranium mining? Why is it also necessary to nibble at the municipal veto, as is done with the legislation that is being presented now?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I think it is strange to compare the decisions that were made in the 60s with the decisions that potentially can be made in the future. They were completely different extraction methods. There was virtually no applicable environmental legislation. There was no thought about what we should do with Y if X happens. It is clear that the Social Democrats should apologize for the abuses that the Ranstad mine led to. I believe that people in Falköping and Skövde would have appreciated that.

When it comes to open-pit mines, I can tell this assembly that I grew up not far from open-pit mines in northern Gotland. They contribute building materials to train stations, bathhouses, railways, and other things built in the municipalities all of you others come from. I think that is good. I think it is reasonable that the state sets environmental requirements on them so that they use the best available methods.

But I do not think we should point out the element uranium as something that makes everything else impossible. If one were to find some uranium in the Kiruna mine, it is not reasonable to close it. The reasonable thing is to handle it in a safe manner and in accordance with the intentions that exist in the Environmental Code.

I also think there are reasons for many parties to consider whether they should fuel fear and foster anxiety in these issues, when we know that there are small amounts of dangerous substances also in many other products: arsenic in rice, cadmium in solar panels, and so on. Uranium is not entirely distinct from the 90 other elements that exist in the Swedish ground and soil.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I think it is important to still make the historical overview from the 60s, when uranium was mined, up to 2025, when the municipal veto is now about to be removed. It actually stopped an attempt at significantly more extensive large-scale operations in the 70s, when the choice was made to use the veto so that even larger wounds would not be made in nature.

I share Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's experience of Nordkalk's mining in Sweden of limestone for cement, which also takes place in the Billingen mountain.

During the 2022 election, which was not all that long ago, the member's party colleague from northern Sweden, Mattias Karlsson, said that it will not be relevant to mine uranium in Norrbotten but that there are such deposits in Västergötland and that it could be mined there in the future. If one from the Moderaternas side means that one creates trust and faith in the future in different regions in that way, it becomes a bit strange. It is not so long ago, so one cannot claim that the environmental legislation now looks completely different and refer to the 60s.

From the party the member represents, it is pointed out that they see uranium mining in Sweden as potentially possible. In that case, it is not correct as the member says in the debate, that large-scale operations will not be relevant, but that one should simply be able to take advantage of the uranium found in the mines where mining is currently taking place.

My question therefore remains: In what way do the Moderaterna want to contribute to people feeling trust and faith in the future in those regions across Sweden that various of the member's colleagues point out as possible to be broken out of in the future? Now, one is opening up for this today, and furthermore, one wants to remove the municipal veto.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! As we have touched upon, it is important to establish that we have freedom of enterprise in Sweden. The same laws shall apply throughout the country. It must be clear for involved parties what applies. We shall not have different assessments in different places.

I think it is important to establish that we have different environmental legislation, different extraction methods, and a completely different system of reins and restraints surrounding mining today compared to how we had it in the 60s. The veto against uranium is the only veto against an element. There is no veto against any other mining activity or against dangerous substances such as arsenic or mercury. What we want is an assessment by authorities, courts, and experts that is not based on political whims.

There are other vetoes. There are vetoes against wind power that can also be appealed to the government, which has the right to override a municipality. That is not possible with the current veto against uranium. Many minerals and metals are critical for Sweden's and the EU's security. The same does not apply to, for example, wind power. So yes, there is an ongoing debate about which municipal vetoes should exist.

The announcement regarding the memorandum that is currently out for consultation will, in that case, come in June and not in this debate. This debate is about enabling, above all, secondary extraction, which constitutes the entirety of Swedish uranium extraction today.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Jesper Skalberg Karlsson speaks about restoring the possibilities for review. This means that with the conditions that exist today, a local acceptance is required. It also requires that you have the municipalities affected by the mine with you.

I share Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's opinion that we need to enable secondary extraction of uranium, and we stand behind that. It is then, as I said in my speech, regrettable that it concerns such an inferior product, which lacks risk and consequence analysis. Responsible authorities do not see where the line will be drawn. What happens with the changes in Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code?

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson also raises this issue regarding local influence. He himself highlights that there is a municipal veto against wind power, and as we heard in a previous debate, his party colleague from Moderaterna, Lars Beckman, believes that it should be ensured that local sewage can also be affected by the local influence.

But Falköping's own Moderate municipal councilor Adam Johansson has been extremely clear about what he thinks of the government's product in this area: He saws it completely! He says that the government must sharpen up and come back with something else.

It is unreasonable to override the municipalities to this extent. Have those signals not reached the Moderate party group?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member from From for the question!

First and foremost, I want to say that there is a difference between sewage and mineral mining. Municipal wastewater is a very clear municipal competence. It is a responsibility that the municipality should take. I do not think it is as obvious that the municipalities should have responsibility for Europe's supply of rare earth metals and critical minerals.

Madam Speaker! I can ask a counter-question to Isak From. I read Svenska Dagbladet this week, where about twenty Social Democratic municipal and regional councilors demanded that the Swedish Parliament should ban all mining of alum shale. But in the report we are debating today, I note that the Social Democrats do not have any such proposal. How can that be? And how are people to discern what the Social Democratic line actually is? In the newspaper, the Social Democrats have a different line than here in the chamber.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe and think that it is important for politics to have its ear to the ground. We need to support the mining municipalities that step up for Sweden's self-sufficiency. We need to gain local acceptance.

We have a very clear congressional decision to allow secondary extraction of uranium to enable the mining of more strategic rare earth metals. But we cannot allow mining in alumschist under the conditions and with the technology that exists today.

However, there may be nuances in this. That is why it is tragically bad that the government's and the Tidö parties' bill does not contain a complete risk and consequence analysis: Does the entire area consist of alum-shale, or is it only parts of the area that do? What will be the extent of the leachate?

We actually also have a congress decision regarding never endangering the groundwater and drinking water. That is the foundation. The second part, the reason why we move for a rejection of the government's proposition, is that the local level is being overridden. Acceptance is not obtained from the local population. It is bad.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When Member of Parliament Isak From speaks about the fact that there may be some alum shale and some uranium and that there may be local conditions that can affect a trial, I actually become quite happy. It shows in a clear way that these are not issues where Sweden's Riksdag can say yes or no to individual different projects, but they are issues that need to be handled in courts and by authorities by experts who can assess the conditions for mining. We in politics shall, so to speak, provide the framework, and then others shall handle the matter itself. Therefore, it is important that there is a clear regulatory framework.

We in the Tidö parties think it is strange that we have 91 naturally occurring elements, but one of the elements is prohibited. It is better not to have such special regulations but to treat uranium in the same way as cadmium, arsenic or mercury, that is, on a case-by-case basis based on the conditions that exist.

Speaking of complicated, Madam Speaker, let me mention that in the media, in many local newspapers, in local Facebook groups and in other places, it sounds as if the Social Democrats want to ban the mining of alum shales. However, there is no such reservation in the report today. One wants, therefore, that the mining of alum shales shall continue to be possible.

Another issue where the Social Democrats are sitting on two chairs at the same time is this regarding secondary extraction. The Swedish extraction is, after all, secondary extraction. So, one says no to the mining of uranium, but one says yes to secondary extraction, which is the entirety of the Swedish extraction of uranium. It is incomprehensible. I do not understand how one can get a clear line from the party ahead of the election next year. It could go either one way or the other. We shall have to see how that matter goes.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I wake up early in the morning, and now I have managed to become so hungry that I hope my stomach growling will not be heard. But I shall try to stick to the subject.

The ban on the extraction of uranium shall be removed, the government proposes. The government's proposal means that it will be possible to extract uranium in Sweden. The changes also mean that the government's mandatory permit review according to the Environmental Code shall be limited to such nuclear facilities as are reviewed by the government according to the Act on Nuclear Activities, and that the review of such activities will no longer be subject to the so-called municipal veto. This we have heard a lot about in this debate.

I agree with those who have pointed out that it is strange how one can change their view regarding in which issues it is important to have a municipal veto. It becomes a bit uncertain where one ends up.

That is how a government that wants to rule the country with an iron fist acts. If someone protests, one wants to take revenge with different methods, whether it concerns emigration, minerals, or something else. I think that there is a lot at stake.

The Government emphasizes that Sweden is a strong mining nation that can play a major role in Europe's supply of critical metals and minerals. I agree with that. I and the Vänsterpartiet agree that Sweden is a strong mining nation. We shall ensure that it remains so in the future as well.

But what kind of mining nation we are to be is extremely important to have with us as we enter the future. The environmental and climate issue ranks high on the agenda all over the world, not just in Sweden.

When people become worried about mining in alumschist, one could say: That is how it always is – there is always someone who is worried and someone who is against things and matters. But we should probably pause for a moment when it concerns just alumschist. It is a bit different than other types of rock. There are no good examples of successful mining projects where mining has taken place in just alumschist.

It is not strange that people are becoming worried and protesting. This government does not seem to care at all about its inhabitants when it comes to this issue. The risks and difficulties with mining in alunschist are known to everyone, including the government. It is not just about health risks, but the risks to the immediate environment and water are also highly tangible.

Madam Speaker! I would be surprised if not everyone else has also received emails, letters, and calls from worried people from all over the country – not just Jämtland and Härjedalen. I was out here and received name signatures from the whole country a couple of hours ago. There were nearly 28,000 of those.

Now I shall quote what the government says: That allowing the extraction of uranium again would make it possible for Sweden to maintain its role as an attractive mining nation that can drive the development of the green transition forward. That is what the government states.

The government is therefore presenting it as if uranium mining is the future of the green transition. Excuse me, Madam Speaker, but here I would almost like to take my hand to my forehead and say: Where are we headed?

I am myself known for being a very pragmatic politician. Often I would probably not even deserve a medal from my own party – I know that. I live where natural resources have meant a lot. They have been completely decisive for our existence in the first place. I think of the forest, agriculture, the ore and the county's heavy industries, as well as on electrical energy. My county has sacrificed a lot so that AB Sverige has been able to flourish.

I have really delved into what alumschist is as a rock type and what differences there are between mining in it and mining in other rock types. I say this so that it becomes clear to everyone that I understand that in the future we will likely have to look at what we can contribute when it comes to minerals that become important for the green transition. There are certainly some deposits that will become relevant for a mine, but that does not mean we say yes to everything. What is it that says our generation should break up everything that is found? At some point, one might have to say: Our generation says no now. Mining uranium does not belong to the future and, above all, not mining in alumschist.

I wonder how in the whole world the government can proceed with a proposal that the municipalities shall have no say when it comes to whether there should be an uranium mine in alunschist or not in the municipalities. But this is just a confirmation of the government's and the Sweden Democrats' self-image regarding their plan, regardless of what it is about. If people do not follow their line willingly, it shall be driven and implemented by force.

Madam Speaker! I and the Left Party cannot describe in words how insane it feels in many respects. Democracy is actually threatened in many of the proposals that this government is presenting. This is just one of them.

I will come back to why this bill is on the table today. One can look at the price of uranium. Financial Times writes that the price has gone up by 240 percent in three years. This obviously means that it suddenly becomes even harder to put together an economic calculation for the government's and Sverigedemokraternas wet dream of new nuclear power.

I am somewhat surprised that the Social Democrats and the Centre Party do not go all the way and want to ban mining in alum shale. I hear examples of what the local politicians are saying, but I will not go into that any further.

Madam Speaker! Everything in this report naturally leads to the conclusion that this government wants to build new nuclear power. This is connected to the fuel for the same.

As I began by saying, I am usually pragmatic. I have understood and accepted that we will have nuclear power as an energy source for several decades to come. Therefore, I joined a proposal that enables secondary extraction of uranium. This is then recycled, so to speak, in other heaps. This includes uranium in mine water, sand deposits, and waste rock piles at existing mines. Utilizing uranium as a byproduct instead of handling it as waste could improve the conditions for certain mining projects and perhaps strengthen Sweden's and Europe's supply of critical minerals and also uranium.

I understand that this will not be decisive for Sweden's reactors, which are humming along. But I think somewhere that it is reasonable to look at whether there is an opportunity to take advantage of this instead of it ending up in the waste pile. We believe that this could be made possible with minor adjustments to the existing law without removing the ban on the extraction of uranium.

Madam Speaker! Now I am going to tell you something that makes me extremely hesitant about new nuclear power and therefore also about this bill.

Let us say that someone had called me 20 years ago and said that I would have solar panels on the roof and that I would be charging my electric car for free half the year at my home in Kaarnevaara, 15 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Then I would obviously have said: Call me back when you have sobered up!

But the facts are: We installed 42 panels on the old barn roof four years ago. My wife bought a used electric car in April. She has commuted to her job at the iron ore mine, Kaunis Iron. She has driven there and driven for grocery shopping. Remember that we have over six miles to the store. All of this has been done for half a year without a single penny in extra cost for the electricity. I would never have believed it two decades ago.

What do I want to have said with this? Yes, that the technological development regarding renewables, for example batteries, is moving at an indescribable pace. One is very surprised. But what has happened regarding the technology to split uranium atoms? Not much, I want to assert.

Madam Speaker! I will stick my neck out. People talk about a country that is modern. Eric Palmqvist pointed out so nicely that he saw the reactors being shut down. But I do not believe that new nuclear power will be built anywhere in the world in 30 years. I say that because the technological development on the other side is going so fast. We will be a modern society but without new nuclear power.

I understand the advantages of reactors that are running today, but you have waste that you still say should be stored for 100,000 years. You have a plan that there will be ice ages in between and all that. It says that you have missed a lot in that technological development.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 5 in the report, but of course, I stand behind all my reservations.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! In August 2018, the decision was made to introduce a ban on the extraction of uranium, and today we are debating the proposal to repeal that ban.

I want to start by saying what I have said many times before during this parliamentary term. All the decisions we have made in this chamber are components of a larger vision for our country's future – a vision for the future that rests on common sense, ethics, and morality. We do not always see the results immediately, but perseverance wins.

Madam Speaker! Today we are making a decision to enable the extraction of uranium. Even now, some will begin to squirm in their seats. It feels a bit like that, a bit scary.

But then there are some fundamentals that one needs to have clear:

Mining of uranium-bearing substances is no more risky than mining of other metals and minerals.

Uran is already present today in other mining operations, but the legislation causes the uranium to be deposited, i.e., discarded, instead of being utilized.

Uran becomes radioactive first during the enrichment process. That process does not take place in Sweden.

Sweden is in need of uranium, not least for the climate transition. Today we import from Canada, Australia, Namibia and Kazakhstan.

Uran occurs in more rocks than alunshiefer. The question should therefore not be mixed up with the concern that many feel regarding specifically mining in alunshiefer.

Sweden has one of the world's most rigid environmental legislations, and I have confidence that our authorities actually make decisions that would not risk our groundwater or drinking water.

Madam Speaker! I refer those who wish to know more about the details to reading the entire bill and the report. I want instead to focus a bit more on the larger dilemma.

I have always thought it is strange that we in Sweden use uranium but forbid ourselves from extracting it. We would like to have the benefit but not take responsibility for the work behind it – a classic "not in my backyard."

We Christian Democrats, like the government and the EU, are now speaking more and more often about self-sufficiency. We have had to acknowledge that we find ourselves in the midst of powers that wish us ill or who at least do not want what we want. These are powers that do not care much about animals and nature, human rights or democracy.

We also often say that Sweden is and shall remain a proud mining nation. It is not a trend dictated by the wind, but it is a necessity. For us Kristdemokrater, it is something more robust: part of the fundamental Swedish values, which have admittedly been relativized by many.

In order for Sweden and Europe not to be swallowed up by malicious powers, it does not work that we are dependent on them. Free trade is good for international relations, but we must be able to supply ourselves with strategic and society-critical products. Otherwise, we have no chance if the crisis comes.

Madam Speaker! The opponents of the proposal we are discussing today may find it difficult to see their own carbon footprint. All parties in this chamber stand behind a goal of transforming our society for the sake of the climate and for the nature we are all a part of. But many are still stuck in symbolic politics. When it comes to the possibility of extracting uranium, they do not want it to happen here in Sweden – that is dangerous! But as long as one is allowed to consume the product oneself, one is simultaneously okay with it happening in other parts of the world.

Some parties in the chamber, however, oppose nuclear power entirely. The same parties also want our energy supply to consist of wind and solar power, and then the same dilemma arises again. China accounts for 90 percent of the market for rare earth metals, which are also necessary for these types of power, and they extract them under conditions we would never accept here. Is it really okay to consume a product – even on a large scale – at the expense of another country's environment and fundamental human rights?

Madam Speaker! I do not bring this up to moralize. We are all involved in these complex trade-offs, every day. Sometimes it feels as if no matter what you do, it ends up being wrong.

I still find comfort and pride in the fact that we in Sweden have some of the world's strictest environmental assessments. I truly understand the concern that many feel. We know that mining entails risks. But I have confidence in our authorities and their ability to make the right trade-offs.

We will not be able to be self-sufficient in everything. But when we can rely on our own resources, we in the Christian Democrats believe that we should do so. In Sweden, we ensure that it causes as little damage as possible. Here, we weigh different interests against each other reasonably.

These are our values, and we should be proud of them. By upholding that pride, we can inspire other countries to follow suit.

Madam Speaker! The proposal we are dealing with today is a piece of a larger future vision of what our home, Sweden, should look like, a Sweden where we live as we learn. How one acts in one issue dictates how one acts in all issues.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the speech!

The Christian Democrats seem to have undergone a political development, in this case perhaps in the wrong direction. The Christian Democrats' party leader Ebba Busch has been very clear. In the 2022 election campaign, she was very clear that the municipal veto would remain. As recently as 2024 and also during 2025, she has however not wanted to answer what she thinks about the municipal veto.

Now, two approaches have been presented, partly this bill, and partly the memorandum on changes to the Nuclear Energy Act which is out for consultation, where the municipal veto is removed.

Camilla Brodin now said that this is a small piece of the puzzle. But it is actually a two-stage atomic rocket that actually removes the local influence. Can Camilla Brodin explain what is it for a process in the Kristdemokraterna that has made the local party representatives now all of a sudden feel overridden by the party centrally?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the question, which I understand concerns the municipal veto. That is not what we are deciding on here today.

The municipal veto is removed only for small amounts of uranium – amounts that primarily occur as a byproduct in the mining of other metals and minerals. I therefore leave the memorandum as it is; it is currently out for consultation, and we must, of course, just as all governments do, listen to what the various consultation bodies say. We will then also take a position on such a decision. I do not want to anticipate that process.

I would like to ask a question back to Member From. Does one want to continue to deposit this uranium? What does one want to do instead of the proposal in the bill?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, it is regrettable that the government's bill is so substandard. It has also been very clearly described, not least by the referral bodies, that a full risk and consequence analysis is lacking.

We think that it should be possible to extract uranium as a secondary byproduct. We think that the waste heaps and the like that exist at existing mines should be able to be handled and that we should be able to extract uranium and other strategic minerals and metals from them. We have also said that the government should return with a new proposition with a risk and consequence analysis of what this entails. It is these parts that cause people to become very worried at the local level.

In this product, we can also highlight the referral responses that come from Naturvårdsverket and SGU, which are fundamentally positive towards this proposal. They lack a risk and consequence analysis, and they lack an analysis of how the changes in Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code affect future trials.

This is what is missing. This is the part that is wrong with the government's proposal.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know how to approach this, but I can continue by pointing out that the environmental assessment is strict. The municipalities will also continue to be able to comment and influence through the Planning and Building Act and during consultations before work on an environmental impact assessment. One also has the opportunity to speak in permit cases.

The municipal veto does not apply to other mining. Is it then logical that uranium has been treated differently? If a mine is established but the municipality says no to uranium mining, would the uranium then be handled as waste and deposited?

In a mine with several different metals and minerals, it is impossible not to pick up the uranium. There is a problem here, but we are now ensuring that we open up so that metals and minerals can be extracted and have the same legislation. We will also ensure that we enable ourselves to manage our climate transition.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats, with Peter Kullgren at the forefront, often speak about the need to increase our food production. In this case, LRF has opposed the proposal and protested very much. There is a fear that with increased mining in, among other things, alum shales, we will destroy many of our farmlands in the future.

I would actually like to hear: Do the Christian Democrats believe that LRF is wrong and that something has been misunderstood when one worries about our agricultural soils?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question!

I believe that many of us in this chamber have been approached by both citizens and LRF, who are concerned. I understand that there is a concern. But we shall not choose uranium over food; instead, here we must look at the whole to see how we can do this in a responsible manner. How do we ensure that we cultivate our land in the best way?

There is another type of problem with this, for example, with solar parks on agricultural land. There are many different interests today when it comes to how we should approach the land and cultivate it for our food supply.

We have environmental legislation, and we have courts. We must be able to trust our authorities so that we ensure that nothing leaks out anywhere. In such cases, it is not possible to open the mine in question. Here we need to take a collective responsibility, both in the small and in the large, so that we can truly manage the climate transition.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

What I am reflecting on is actually the mining that takes place in alunshiefer. This usually lies in connection with or under our topsoils. That means there is a big difference between mining in alunshiefer and the construction of solar parks on agricultural land. If you set up solar parks, you can also dismantle them. We have seen many good examples where, for instance, livestock are kept under the solar panels, which then receive both shade and better food supply. It is therefore much simpler to continue farming together with solar parks than to do this in connection with starting uranium mining in alunshiefer.

I still think the Christian Democrats are responsible. How should one think, and what should one prioritize if one has to choose? Will the Christian Democrats prioritize food supply and clean water, or will they prioritize self-sufficiency of rare earth metals or uranium in our soils?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question!

I do not think that any of us in this chamber will need to set uranium against our agricultural lands. Here we must ensure that we trust the environmental legislation we have today in a responsible manner. There may be some other thought from another party that one wants to change this in some direction in order to ensure that we meet our climate goals. Sometimes one does not quite know what will come from Miljöpartiet.

To conduct a climate policy that makes a real difference is not to ignore providing the conditions for the mining and extraction of different types of earth metals, rare earth metals, minerals, and uranium.

We shall provide the conditions for this in a unified way so that we also take responsibility for what we consume. That is what we shall do instead of trying to ensure that it feels a bit good in the stomach by bringing in our solar panels and wind farms. We need very much, because it is for the electrification we are heading towards in order to be able to manage the climate transition.

But then we must take our responsibility both in Sweden and in the EU. We must also look at the security policy situation in the bigger picture. Somewhere here we need to take our responsibility to enable this, and this will not be in opposition to each other.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the speech!

I think it is absolutely excellent that we are given the opportunity to deepen the arguments in exchanges of various kinds, because this is an important issue. As several have touched upon earlier in the debate, it is about creating good conditions for the future. Many talk about the green transition and so on.

I would just like to deepen the reasoning somewhat together with Camilla Brodin. At the end of the speech, she says that this is only one piece of a larger future vision. It sounds almost poetic! At the same time, I would like to point out that in this future vision, one wants to twist a number of tools out of the hands of, for example, the municipalities so that they will no longer have the possibility of the municipal veto. In what way does the future vision look for the close cooperation between the business community, municipal representatives, and people who are everywhere?

I am somewhat puzzled by the member's enthusiasm for our strong environmental legislation, which we, of course, largely stand behind. But I also know that there is a discussion about it being changed. In what way? Can the member provide further pieces of the puzzle for the future vision linked to the degree of self-sufficiency, which the member highlighted regarding the ability to mine uranium in Sweden?

I think there is a fairly large discrepancy between the representatives of the Moderates and the Christian Democrats in how they view the possibility of uranium mining in Sweden.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Heie, for the opportunity to discuss and delve deeper into the exchanges, just as the member said earlier!

It is lovely to hear that you are somewhat surprised by my enthusiasm for the environmental legislation. I have said on several occasions here today that it is strict in Sweden today, and that applies to both the environmental legislation and the Environmental Code. The municipalities will still be able to comment and influence, as I said in a previous exchange of remarks. This can occur through the Planning and Building Act, during consultations before work on an environmental impact assessment, and through the municipalities' opportunity to bring a case in permit proceedings.

In the current situation, there is no municipal veto for other mining; it is only for uranium mining. Here, we are creating the conditions to extract rare earth elements, metals, minerals, and everything that belongs there. We will not put a spoke in the wheel through a ban. Now we are making it possible for the companies and for Sweden to be the mining nation that has built our prosperity, together with the forest and the steel and everything else. Sweden shall continue to be that nation; it is part of the vision for the future.

It is also about how we secure and can connect this with the climate transition that the entire society is facing. We shall also take the security policy work into account and think about these things in parallel. I believe it is very important – much more important than that we pick out certain parts.

Of course, municipalities should be able to participate and have their say. But we must also ensure that we create good conditions. In the report, it is about us lifting the ban on extracting uranium. The proposal regarding the municipal veto is currently out for consultation, and it will come at a later stage.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answers to my questions!

The answers raise some additional questions that I would like to ask. First and foremost: regarding the municipal veto, the member says that the municipalities will be able to express themselves and that they will be able to give their opinion. But today, they actually have a decision-making power. In what way does this align with the Christian Democrats' view that decisions should be made as close to the individual as possible? Now, you want to remove that possibility and argue that the municipalities should instead be allowed to give their opinion and express themselves a little bit, but not be involved in making decisions. I would like to hear something further linked to this.

It was absolutely not my intention to sound surprised by the enthusiasm for the environment, as I know there is a strong commitment to this. I just want to ask a follow-up question: Do the Christian Democrats, therefore, not want to change the environmental legislation?

It was those questions that I primarily thought were outstanding.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! It was very nice to hear the member from Centerpartiet speak about the subsidiarity principle and about how we should make decisions at the lowest possible effective level. It is precisely this – to make decisions at the lowest possible effective level – that is the politicians' responsibility.

Parents should be able to decide for themselves who shall be at home with the children. The Christian Democrats believe that families should be allowed to decide on such matters.

When it comes to climate and environmental legislation, decisions perhaps do not need to be made at home at every kitchen table, but in that case, one needs to come together in order to be able to make wise decisions. The environment has no borders – it is there, and we have it in common. Here we need to ensure that decisions are made where it is most effective.

Today we are debating the removal of a ban to enable a transition that we can rely on. The entire society is moving in that direction anyway, and many of us in this chamber are working actively for this. We also see the opportunity to extract uranium instead of placing it in a landfill, as is done today. To utilize the natural resources we have in common is to take responsibility for the future.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! A bit into the debate, it is good to be able to have one's own speech and not just raise issues in replies.

Today we are debating the government's proposal to completely and unconditionally scrap the ban on uranium mining in Sweden by reintroducing uranium as a concession mineral in the Minerals Act. It is a proposal that at first glance may seem to be a simple and rational way to strengthen our energy supply. However, when one scratches the surface a little, it becomes clear that the government's proposal is both ill-considered and risky, and that it overrides fundamental principles of local self-government and environmental responsibility.

Centerpartiet therefore says no to the government's proposition. We view the removal of the ban with concern, together with the proposal for a potential removal of the municipal veto against uranium mining that the government has sent out for consultation. It will drastically complicate matters for municipalities to decide on any establishments of uranium mines in the municipalities.

Madam Speaker! Let me be very clear: the Centre Party is not against nuclear power. Nor are we against a strong mining industry, rather the opposite. We want to enable more mines in Sweden, and we have submitted several proposals to shorten the permit processes and strengthen the competitiveness of the Swedish mineral industry. Uranium, however, differs significantly from other minerals and needs to be handled in a different way. This is where the government's proposal fails fundamentally.

We Members of Parliament from Skaraborg know what we are talking about. We have already lived with the consequences of uranium mining. Between Skövde and Falköping, at the Billingen mountain, lie Häggum and Ranstadsverket, which mined uranium for a number of years during the 60s. At that time, Sweden had ambitions regarding nuclear weapons and so on, so it was a fairly large issue that deserves to be highlighted from many different aspects.

Today, it is an open wound in the landscape, admittedly with bandages on. There is a lake, and it looks like beautiful nature. However, we know that for a long time to come – more accurately, for eternity – it will continue to leak from these types of operations. The risks are great.

The cost for the remediation and cleanup has landed at over half a billion kronor in today's value. Even today, more than 50 years later, the area where the waste was deposited is a cordoned-off environmental risk area that requires eternal monitoring to prevent leakage of radioactivity and heavy metals. It is the costly and painful lesson from Ranstad. A few years of operation can lead to large costs and permanent environmental damage.

Madam Speaker! Uranium differs from other minerals mined in Sweden. Uranium ore has a different character and requires different processing than, for example, iron ore. In Sweden, uranium is found primarily in alunschist, which means a major difference compared to conventional mining. Alunschist usually has a very low uranium content, which means that large amounts of rock need to be mined, crushed, and leached to extract relatively small amounts of uranium. Because the ore is low-grade, open-pit mines that occupy large areas are required.

Breaking this on a large scale risks poisoning our groundwater and our drinking water for generations to come. I hear what the government parties are saying: We have strong environmental legislation that will ensure that it does not happen. However, we know that it does not always turn out as intended. Accidents of various kinds occur, and we must not risk it.

The government brushes aside the risks and argues that the Environmental Code should suffice, but the experiences from Ranstad show with all desirable clarity that the consequences are extremely difficult to manage, even with the best will – or vision – in the world.

Madam Speaker! The second major problem with the bill is the attack on local self-government. The law we are now debating aims, together with the proposal that is currently out for consultation, to completely remove the municipal veto. It will drastically reduce local influence.

Let us not forget the popular resistance. I, and many with me in Skaraborg, remember the massive protests in the 70s when they wanted to resume the mining. Now we are talking about a mine that engaged in mining for a few years and was then shut down. There were plans to reopen it, but thank goodness there was the municipal veto. That meant that decision-makers at the lowest level – in the municipalities – could impose a municipal veto that stopped the mining. Thousands of people gathered to defend their region, their water, and their farmland.

It is not that nothing has happened since then. Nor is it that we are only talking about old technology when it comes to uranium mining. Many landowners on the Billingen mountain, in different parts of Jämtland, in Oviken and so on, experience a great threat. New proposals for new technology that could facilitate mining are presented, but upon closer inspection, they do not hold up. This has created concern in large regions, and therefore it has been good to have a ban on uranium mining.

However, the Centre Party stands behind that uranium should not have to be piled up but can be used when metals are mined and uranium becomes a byproduct that comes with it. One must ensure that resources are used in a good way.

Madam Speaker! The municipal veto is extremely important. It ensures that the people who live closest to a potential uranium mine – those who will be affected the most – have the decisive influence. Now, in a first step, the government proposes that the veto should be weakened, and if one gets what one wants, it should be completely removed. Power would then be shifted from the local – from Häggum or Oviken – to a meeting table or a desk at the Ministry of Enterprise. It is a dangerous path to take. It is also a disrespectful act towards all the local communities that may be affected.

For us, the principle is crystal clear: Local acceptance is absolutely crucial.

Madam Speaker! The government's main argument is security of supply. But is that true? No. Sweden is already part of a secure supply chain through Euratom and imports uranium from democracies such as Canada and Australia, which have a significantly higher concentration of uranium in their ground and do not need to conduct their mining in oil shale. The EU has also not classified uranium as a critical raw material. To then risk invaluable natural areas, such as Platåbergen in Skaraborg or the land by Storsjön in Jämtland, would not only be dangerous but also completely unnecessary.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has its own constructive proposal, a way forward that balances the need for resources with environmental considerations and local influence. We propose that the general ban on opening new mines with the primary purpose of extracting uranium shall remain. On the other hand, it is a huge waste of resources not to allow uranium to be utilized as a byproduct from other mining operations. Today, the mining companies are forced to pile this up, and it is absurd. Let us instead create legislation that makes it possible to handle and use this uranium in a safe manner. It is circular economy in practice and resource-smart, and it reduces the amount of hazardous waste without us needing to open new risky uranium mines in sensitive environments.

In summary, Madam Speaker: The Government's proposal misses the mark, it undermines local democracy, and it is based on incorrect premises.

The Centre Party chooses a different, more responsible path. Therefore, I move for approval of reservations 1 and 2 and for the rejection of the bill.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Heie for the presentation.

There is talk about premises, and I would like to dwell on just this. The Center Party stood behind banning the extraction of uranium, that is to say, that which ensures that one is not allowed to pick up uranium atoms if one is looking for uranium atoms and also not if one is looking for other atoms. Then I want to ask a question about the premises. What is the scientific basis the Center Party rests on when one says that uranium is so uniquely dangerous that that element should be prohibited to mine? What is the scientific assessment behind that uranium is more dangerous than arsenic, more dangerous than mercury, more dangerous than cesium and more dangerous than strontium? What is it that makes uranium uniquely dangerous such that it should have a special legislation in Sweden? It would be interesting to know.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to uranium mining, I explained in my speech the possibility of utilizing the uranium that is mined in connection with other mining so that it is not left as waste but is used. The Centre Party sees it as a natural part of a circular society that one makes use of what one is mining anyway.

Uran mining in uranium mines is a completely different type of mining because one takes a very large amount of land into claim. As I have understood it, the large uranium deposits are also located in populated areas with strong agriculture and other industries, and these would then be pushed aside in a way that would not be good.

That is why the Center Party places great emphasis on local self-determination and decision-making power. It is about in what way future visions in different regions are utilized and that decisions should be made as close to the people as possible. The focus of the Center Party's reasoning is both that the power should remain close to the people who live there and that one cannot break ground in the same way as one breaks, for example, iron ore and so on.

The Chairman lists a number of other dangerous substances for which there is preparedness in various legislations. The Centre Party does not, however, see this as a reason to remove the ban on specifically uranium, but it can remain while we make it possible to still use the uranium that is extracted from the ground during the other types of mining that occur today.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Heie for the answer.

It is not possible to reach any other conclusion than that the ban on extracting uranium has been adopted because uranium sounds and feels dangerous. One has not treated elements such as mercury, arsenic, cesium, and strontium with the same legislative tools, even though they are very dangerous and in many cases significantly more toxic.

My next question may lie somewhat outside today's debate, but I perceive that many members today have taken that liberty. The Centre Party has decided that uranium sounds and feels dangerous and is thus participating in fueling this fear and anxiety. How will it then go for the Centre Party when your red-green friends come forward with that glyphosate is carcinogenic and other examples of terror? That also sounds dangerous, but a ban on glyphosate would in practice make modern agriculture in Sweden impossible. Is the Centre Party not on a slippery slope here? Could it not come back to bite you in the tail?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jesper Skalberg Karlsson for his concern regarding us biting our own tails. I cannot see that the Center Party builds its policy on cultivating fear or anxiety. Rather, we build our policy on creating security and faith in the future in regions that are under strong pressure linked to the policy that the governing parties choose to highlight.

The leader has chosen to maintain a low, reasoning conversational tone both during his speech and in previous exchanges. I think the purpose is to build trust and faith in the future among those voters who believe that it would be good to have large uranium mines in Sweden and a high degree of self-sufficiency.

I mean that it is important to examine every part regardless of what tone we choose to have and ask ourselves what we base our decisions on. When it comes to uranium, that mining cannot be compared with the other subjects the members took up. They are not at all the same type of mines. They are dangerous substances, but still different forms of mining. Therefore, scrutiny is important.

It is about having environmental legislation where one can rely on it holding up in the ways that are needed without removing the local influence for people. It is not based on cultivating someone's fear, but on giving these regions the opportunity for faith in the future without a constant ongoing threat that someone else will decide over the region – as was done in the 60s and during the first years of the 00s when these agricultural regions were threatened by various prospecting companies.

I know that we have a number of conflicting goals to manage, and we do that through close decisions that are not based on fear and feeling but on facts.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I will not prolong the debate too much. Much wisdom has already been spoken, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal. I think my colleagues in the parties on the government side have argued well, and I am pleased with the good tone we have maintained here in the chamber.

This is a rather delicate issue to tackle regardless of where one stands in politics, and I understand and sympathize very much with the commitment many people have for the nature and waters in their immediate environment. It is good that they have it – anything else would be strange.

But at the same time, Madam Speaker, we need the minerals, metals and elements that enable us to live in a high-tech, progressive society.

There are surely some exceptions, but I would believe that the vast majority in this chamber and in Sweden do not want to back into the future and do not want to scale back all the technical innovations and technological gains that we have seen in the recent decades.

It becomes a bit hypocritical to say on one hand that we should have all the advantages that we have been able to get with the technical development – our electric cars, our smart phones and all the opportunities we see within AI – but that we on the other hand should not ourselves contribute to that development. It is nicer when we do not see what lies behind the products and do not see that someone else needs to do the work that we can then benefit from.

I think that we in Sweden need to contribute. I also think that Sweden's environmental legislation, one of the world's strictest, is something that we should be very proud of and continue to safeguard. It means that we are in a very good position to contribute to the supply of minerals and metals that will be needed in the future.

It should be added very briefly that the repeal of the ban we are discussing today is a relatively new legislation introduced in 2018, so it can to some extent be said to be a return to an order that we had in Sweden previously. As several colleagues here have said, it enables us to take care of the uranium that companies produce when they extract other materials and that we are no longer to place in a landfill. I think that sounds like a wise step. Everything else would be insane waste of resources.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all motions.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö government is currently doing whatever it can to try to demonstrate decisiveness in the nuclear power issue, but it is often difficult to see that the decisions being made are to any joy for Sweden's citizens. Today, it looks like we will make decisions to once again allow uranium mining on Swedish soil. It is a decision that is questioned by many.

Recently, a sense of unease has spread through Sweden. We members of Parliament receive emails, letters to the editor appear in various local newspapers, and groups are being started in social media. Right now, many are concerned about the risk of uranium mining projects being started in their surrounding areas.

Today, several of the parliamentary parties have received a petition which, the last time I checked, had just over 28,000 signatures. We are asked to ban mining in alunschist. Several companies have shown interest in uranium in various areas in Sweden, and if the ban on Swedish uranium mining is now removed, several companies are in the starting positions to investigate the possibilities for new mines.

The Swedish uranium deposits are found in alum shales and in the bedrock. According to SGU, uranium-rich alum shale occurs in Skåne, Västergötland, Östergötland, Öland, Närke and along the Swedish mountain chain, often in large deposits but with low uranium contents. In Oviken in Jämtland, there is alum shale with high uranium contents by Swedish standards – 50–400 grams per ton – which can be compared with Canada's uranium-rich deposits with up to 200 kilos of uranium per ton of rock. In Sweden, we therefore need to mine enormous amounts of rock mass compared to the mines in Canada from which we currently receive uranium for our nuclear power plants.

In recent weeks, we have seen people spread across the entire country, alone or together, trying to get us to stop today's decision. Why? People simply do not want to see their immediate environment changed beyond recognition. They want to protect their land, their immediate environment, their water, their fields, and their forest, and they cannot see how the extraction of small amounts of uranium in large open-pit mines can be worth the enormous environmental damage that may arise. There is reason for their concern.

In Sweden, we use between 1,500 and 2,000 tons of pure uranium in our nuclear power plants every year. That is, 2,000 tons of uranium every year. In Sweden, as I have said, we have low uranium levels, even in deposits with Sweden's highest levels. One can compare with Canada, where the levels in their best deposits are approximately 1,000 times higher than the Swedish ones.

To extract 2,000 tonnes of uranium – a Swedish annual consumption – from Swedish deposits, we need to mine 20 million tonnes of rock. It is difficult for most to imagine 20 million tonnes of rock. I cannot imagine how much that is, so we can take an example from reality. There, I want to once again highlight Ranstadsverket in Västergötland.

During the five years in the 1960s when the operations in Ranstad were active, a total of 215 tons of uranium were extracted. This is approximately one-tenth of the uranium that Sweden needs in a year. These 215 tons gave rise to more than 1.5 million tons of alumschist waste. The remaining open-pit mine is a 100 meters wide and 2 kilometers long depression with a depth of between 10 and 15 meters, which was later converted into a lake, Tranebärssjön.

More than 50 years have now passed since the operations in Ranstad were closed. Remediation measures have been ongoing since then, and it has been established that the area will continue to be an environmental risk area with high restrictions.

In an environmental report from 2005 from WSP, it can be read that the area leaks out small but measurable additions of uranium and nickel to lakes and watercourses in the area. Sulfate and metals such as uranium, nickel, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, copper and zinc are higher in watercourses flowing out from the area than in water flowing in. Compared with other similar areas in southern Sweden, the levels are high.

The target value for uranium in drinking water for animals and seabirds is, of course, exceeded in Tranebärssjön, and water from the lake and surface water downstream should not be used regularly in agriculture as this could pose a risk to crops in the long term. The fish in the area have elevated levels of arsenic.

One can discuss – we have already done that – whether Ranstad is a relevant example of what uranium mining can lead to today, but the truth is still that mining in alumschist cannot be carried out in a safe way today. No one has been able to show that it is safe. With the low uranium content that Sweden's alumschists contain, it is a high-risk undertaking to begin a new mining operation to obtain a small fraction of all the uranium that Sweden's nuclear power plants need today.

When it comes to increased self-sufficiency, the mining of uranium and metal may instead risk our drinking water and our food supply when water and soils are contaminated or disappear in open-pit mines. Therefore, Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, LRF, has also strongly opposed all prospecting and mining in alunschist. It is warned that the proposal risks hitting hard against several of the industries that our economy and self-sufficiency are built on, for example agriculture, forestry, food production, and a growing tourism industry.

Miljöpartiet wants to stop mining in alunshiefer. Regardless of which substances one wants to extract from alunshiefer, there are major problems with the mining, which takes place in open-pit mines, primarily because the mining can release radioactive substances such as uranium and radium and heavy metals such as zinc, nickel, and arsenic. All of this risks leaking into the soil and groundwater, contaminating our groundwater and surface water, and destroying entire ecosystems.

The remediation of the contaminated areas has proven to be extremely expensive and difficult and can take a long time to complete. In Ranstad, half a billion has been spent on remediation measures so far. No one has so far been able to show that one can extract metals or uranium from alunschist in an environmentally safe way.

Miljöpartiet also does not want to see secondary extraction of uranium as a byproduct, primarily because we do not want to leave loopholes in the legislation that could allow uranium mining just because other metals are being mined simultaneously, but also because mining in alunschist could be given better economic conditions if the uranium can be included in the calculation, which could lead to more mines in alunschist.

Last but not least, I want to say a few words about the municipal veto. When Sweden last legislated a ban on uranium mining, one objection was that a national ban was not particularly important since it was considered that the municipalities themselves had a strong position to say no. Neither the Moderaterna nor the Liberalerna wanted a ban and thought that the strong municipal veto was fully sufficient as a protection. Today, the government wants to weaken this veto and, in the long run, remove it. We find this to be completely reprehensible.

The municipality and its inhabitants need to be able to decide if they want to allow or stop projects that can have a decisive effect on the residents' immediate environment for all time to come.

In light of this, we want to oppose the government's proposal to allow uranium mining in Sweden with all our might. We also do not want secondary mining of uranium as a byproduct to be allowed. We want to retain a strong municipal veto against uranium mining. Last but not least, we want to see a ban on mining in alunschist.

I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation number 4 and Miljöpartiet's reasoned reservation number 3.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the contribution to the debate!

It is clear that we stand some distance apart on this issue. I thought that we perhaps do not need to further enlighten the voters on that in this exchange of remarks.

I intend to hold onto one thing that Member Luhr said about the low concentration levels and 20 million tons, which sounds like a lot.

I begin by asking a knowledge question to the member. Does the member know how much is mined in Aitik in my home municipality every year? Does the member know how much rock LKAB mines every year?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not know that. I tried to take the example of the mining in Ranstad, which was 1.5 million tons, and how large an open-pit mine actually becomes. It is difficult to imagine how much land is claimed for the mining that takes place. But I do not know how much is mined in the other mines.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for that clarification!

Now I understand that we are talking about a completely different bedrock and completely different conditions. One cannot compare a gigantic open-pit mine in Sweden with several other deposits. We shall nevertheless try to get some perspective on the volumes we are talking about.

Aitik in Gällivare extracts 40 million tons annually. It is 40 million tons every year, give or take. LKAB extracted 84 million tons of rock in 2023. It is a matter of getting some perspective. It is not such large volumes we are talking about spread across several other locations.

I have full respect for the fact that we might be talking about agricultural land, alum shale and other things. But we still have to put things into perspective and not paint it as if we are going to dig up half of Sweden.

It sounds like those are absolutely fantastic large figures. In my home municipality alone, they double those volumes every year. I pass it on the way to Luleå.

I know what it means when one shoots into the rock, and I am not disturbed by it. On the contrary, I know that it is the prerequisite for us to have a society, jobs, and so on.

I want to give a message with this. When we talk about low concentration levels and low levels in the rock, it is a challenge that makes us drive the technology forward and become better at taking care of what we have in the ground.

If it is profitable, we shall do it in a sensible way. It is not astronomical volumes that we are talking about, after all.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, there are differences. I do not mean that it needs to be problematic with all mining and that we extract large amounts of material.

We heard, for example, from Jesper Skalberg Karlsson that it sounds as if we are now going to have mines in every little forest edge. These are not tiny areas.

One can look at Ranstad as an example. One received approximately one-tenth of a Swedish annual consumption during a five-year period. There, one has an open-pit mine that is 2 kilometers long and 100 meters wide.

It is quite large areas for someone who is later to have the mine in their vicinity. This applies regardless of whether one lives in a mountain area, in a mountain range or by a lake.

We may eventually be able to become self-sufficient in uranium in Sweden. With a future vision of even more nuclear power plants in Sweden, it is a matter of large quantities and large open-pit mines. I think that is something one must understand.

One thinks that it doesn't matter. If we are to take the uranium from Swedish ground and not buy it from Canada, it matters. The grades in Canada are enormously much higher. We can then use less rock mass and cause a smaller environmental impact during that time, in any case as I see it, until we use energy other than nuclear power.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! This is an interesting debate, and it is a debate being conducted in Stockholm. It sounds like a classic Stockholm debate.

Madam Speaker! Had we held the debate in my home municipality, we would have had a completely different debate and completely different positions from the parties that had participated in the debate.

In my constituency where I am elected, five of the Riksdag's parties are represented. We are nine representatives. It is two of the parties that are represented who today have said that they will vote no to abolishing the law on the ban on uranium mining. We have also said that we say no to the dismantling of the municipal veto. It is the first step that we take today.

Two parties correspond to four members here. This means that if the other members from my constituency Skaraborg had stood up for their voters and followed the opinion that exists in Skaraborg, we could have stopped this proposal.

What we do here when we debate is that we let the voters find out where we stand and how we vote. It is the voters' opportunity to hold us accountable. That is why the local debate in Skaraborg becomes a bit strange.

There, one identifies oneself if one is from Skaraborg, for example. Or one says: It will certainly entail a small restriction of the municipal veto. But we will not proceed with the two-stage rocket that has been spoken of here today; we will stop that. That is what the Moderaterna say in Skaraborg. It is because they know that the voters in Skaraborg do not want this.

The Member of Parliament from the Sweden Democrats said that he is not disturbed at all by the mining in Gällivare. That is probably great. But in my home municipality, people are disturbed by a potential future mining of uranium. People are so disturbed that the Moderates in Falköping are against it. That is how much people are disturbed. One listens to one's voters.

That is why the members from my constituency Skaraborg will have it a bit difficult at 16:00 today, in just over an hour, when they are to press the button against their voters' own perception.

Madam Speaker! That is still what is so important to understand. These debates are for the voters to be able to demand accountability. The members know that, and it means that it becomes very heavy.

In the local debate back home in Skaraborg, the Moderaterna say it doesn't matter if the ban is removed, because it will never be broken anyway. It is a very strange argument, Madam Speaker, that nothing will ever happen anyway. They say that nothing will change, so therefore this law or the municipal veto is not needed. But a friend of order wonders then why one removes it if it is never going to be broken anyway.

Sometimes one is so cheeky that one says "at least not here, but maybe in Jämtland." However, I am not sure if the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats or the Liberals – if there are even any such – in Jämtland would agree with that description.

I therefore move for approval of reservations 1 and 2 and note that the members of Skaraborg have the opportunity to make a difference today, if they wish.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report NU7, The ban on the extraction of uranium is removed. I want to begin by agreeing with everything that Isak From and Patrik Björck have said in the debate today.

I have heard that we who live in the areas where Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna want to start mining uranium are "a little worried" and that we do not want uranium mining in our backyard. I live in one of the municipalities in Jämtland where the government is now opening up for mining.

Our four municipalities – Berg, Åre, Krokom and Östersund – all lie around Storsjön, which is an important water source for all four municipalities. Part of Jämtland's fertile agriculture is located around Storsjön – like so many other rural areas with alum-shale, we have fertile farmland, and that is one of the reasons why LRF says no to the mining of uranium.

I do not know if the members in this chamber understand how large this open-pit mine in Oviken would become given the small amount of uranium that exists per ton. So, Madam Speaker, we are not worried – we are well-informed about the risks of mining uranium in alunschist. We are also well-informed that there are no safe methods today, either for exploitation in alunschist or for handling the waste.

The municipalities around Storsjön have invited responsible ministers several times to visit them and speak with the citizens. The Minister for Enterprise finally accepted the invitation, but it was only after the government had made the decision. As the icing on the cake for the citizens in Jämtland is now the political will from the SD government to remove the municipal veto.

I would like to move for the approval of reservation 1, which is a rejection of the bill, and offer the members of the Riksdag the opportunity to visit us in Jämtland, where the people of Jämtland actually consider this to be the wrong path to take. I also see, Madam Speaker, that we have another Jämtland member in the chamber, Saila Quicklund, who I also hope stands on the side of the people of Jämtland in this matter.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We spoke a little about alum shale at the beginning of the debate, but it is possible that Member Sätherberg only arrived at the end to deliver his speech. That may have happened.

I hear in the speech that one should stand on Östersund's side, one should stand on Åre's side and one should stand on Krokum's side. In that case, I have only one question regarding how Member Sätherberg will vote this afternoon.

The Social Democrats who lead in those municipalities have written in Svenska Dagbladet, and a good deal of other local newspapers as well for that part, that the Riksdag must ban mining in alunschist. In the report that we are to vote on today, however, the Social Democrats do not have any such proposal, so my question is quite simply: What is it that applies?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Jesper Skalberg Karlsson must not forget Bergs kommun. You forgot it in your reply. It is actually there that the largest part of this mine is located, that is, in Oviken.

We have responded to a proposition. The government's proposition is about opening up for uranium mining. The last time we had that debate, I also stood in this chamber. I recall it was in May 2018. Then I was very happy to be able to deliver an answer to the question, to the people in Jämtland and to all other places where there is concern that it will be opened for uranium mining, that it became a clear no.

Since this bill concerns uranium mining, it is this that we are responding to. We respond with a rejection of the bill, and we also say: Do not tamper with the municipal veto!

Regarding alum shale specifically, we Social Democrats have a strong congress decision. I believe a decision was made now at the Moderates' convention that they wanted to learn a bit more about alum shale mining. However, we already have a decision that the risks with alum shale mining are too great, which means that the next time an alum shale issue comes up in this chamber, we will definitely vote according to our congress decision.

I also have a question for Jesper Skalberg Karlsson. If you have lived in these areas, you know that the prospecting has continued ever since the change of government in 2006 and has all the time laid a wet blanket and a dead hand over the development of these areas. When Fredrik Reinfeldt in Umeå opened up for uranium mining in 2009, it became even worse.

Doesn't Jesper Skalberg Karlsson see that we cannot have any development in the rural areas, in agriculture, and the tourism industry and other things when we are constantly having this discussion?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Sätherberg for the answer!

I perceive it as that, based on a technicality that this bill is not about alum shale, you do not intend to vote for a ban on mining in alum shale. One can think that, but in point 4 regarding the municipal veto, you join the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party, even though this bill is not about the municipal veto. You therefore seem to be making somewhat different assessments of what this is actually about.

One can read in the newspaper that the Social Democrats want to ban mining in alunschist. In the reservations, one can read that they do not want to ban mining in alunschist. In the reports, it sounds as if they only want to ban primary mining and not secondary mining. Then one can wonder why they then banned primary and secondary extraction in 2018.

Madam Speaker! Since 100 percent of the uranium extraction in Sweden is precisely secondary mining, I wonder if it is not in fact the case that the watered-down motion reservations are actually intended so that the Social Democrats can sit on two chairs at the same time. One says outwardly and writes in the newspaper that one is against everything, but in reality, one stands behind mining in alunschist – which admittedly is to have higher requirements than other mining, and that is not something we are trying to change – and one says that one can continue with all that secondary extraction. But the entire report is about that.

What is it that actually applies? It seems that the Social Democrats say one thing one day and another thing the next day.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would have wished that the debate could also have been about what Patrik Björck creditably raised, namely to take the opinions of the Närkes, the Jämtes, the Skaraborgs, the Skånes and the Västerbottens seriously – the people who live all around in these areas.

We vote on our own reservations. We vote yes on the Social Democrats' reservations. I believe the Moderates also usually do the same. It is rare that I see you running to vote on a Liberal reservation or any other reservation. We vote on our own reservations and on the bill concerning uranium mining.

However, we are clear about our decision regarding alunschist. I know that the Moderaterna want to learn a bit more about alunschist. I suggest that Jesper Skalberg Karlsson visits all the Jämtland residents who for decades have gathered facts about mining with alunschist, who have found out that there is no safe mining method, and simply shows that he respects the expertise of those who are affected by the issue. Perhaps Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and the other members will learn something.

Take things and matters seriously when it concerns people in places that are not located right in the middle of this city. That is what I would respect.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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