(cont. from § 15) Mineral policy (cont. NU18)

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! As mentioned, we are debating the Committee on Industry's report on mineral policy with motions from the general motion period.

I want to begin by saying that we, of course, stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, we move for approval of only reservation 1.

During the break, I have been informed by my wise colleagues and I should clarify that Norra Kärr is located 90 percent in Småland and not in Östergötland. That can be an important part to take with you.

Mr. Speaker! In a geopolitically difficult situation with war and trade barriers, tariffs and blockades, we in Sweden, we in Europe and we in the EU need to ensure our independence. At the same time, we need to ensure that we can proceed with the climate transition. We need to ensure the industry's resources and build competitiveness.

When it comes to starting to build independence, we can see that we and the EU are beginning to pull ourselves out of the state of lethargy that has characterized Europe and the EU for the last 25 years.

When it comes to the climate transition, we can unfortunately see that countries like Trump's USA and Putin's Russia are backing off significantly.

China accelerates and brakes at the same time – it is at the forefront in electrification and the transport sector but unfortunately is still building coal power. China also has control today over almost all strategic metals and minerals in its own country but also through far-reaching agreements with many other countries, not least countries in Africa.

This is something we in the EU need to be aware of. Therefore, it is good that the EU has made decisions on a number of projects based on the Critical Raw Materials Act to provide the opportunity to speed up access to critical metals. In that context, Sweden has been given the opportunity to move forward with five projects. These are Reemap: Malmberget, Per Geijer and Luleå Industrial Park, all three of which are LKAB projects. It is very positive that one can move forward with those. In addition, one will move forward with Talgas graphite mine in Vittangi as a strategic project.

Also on the project list is the recycling project Northcycle, which is operated by Northvolt Revolt. Unfortunately, Northvolt Revolt, as well as the parent company Northvolt, have gone bankrupt. Despite that, the EU Commission has judged that this project is so important for the possibility of recycling batteries that it should and can proceed. This is naturally a positive message for the battery factory in Skellefteå. Here we have a strategic project, and it is necessary for all of Europe that it can proceed. With that support, a new actor can continue working with the possibility of actually creating a recycling industry for batteries.

Our mining industry is of great importance for our country, both in the national and regional and in the European perspective. We can be completely in agreement on that. It is absolutely crucial to meet the global climate crisis. In that case, we also need to ensure that LKAB, Kaunis Iron and others can get access to lime, as lime is just as necessary as electricity for producing steel. In the EU's raw materials strategy, the importance of the entire chain is particularly emphasized.

We specifically highlight in a reservation the importance of creating a fast track for strategic rare earth metals. It is absolutely crucial.

We will have to see what happens with these first projects, but it is clear that we Social Democrats become quite worried when we see that one of the biggest obstacles is local opposition that opposes new mines, and that these tend to increase when you simultaneously reduce and remove the grants, not least to the county administrative boards' work to bridge obstacles and create dialogue with different interests.

Such an action risks having exactly the opposite effect. It risks increasing uncertainty, and it risks that more appeals will end up on the table. This is something neither Sweden nor Europe needs.

We also mean that it is absolutely crucial that the mining towns are not left alone. Towns like Kiruna and Gällivare take a great responsibility to provide not only Sweden, but also Europe and the world, with important metals. However, they are left behind when it comes to housing construction and the availability of competence. It is not fair. It is clear that the compensation can occur in many ways, but it is completely obvious that those towns also expect to get something back.

We Social Democrats are looking at our policy and at what we can do to clarify that these towns shall also be given the opportunity to get something back. Large tax revenues are lost when up to 2,000 employees cannot live in Kiruna or Gällivare but commute in and out. Then that tax base will end up somewhere else. That, Mr. Speaker, is not reasonable. It is fully understandable.

We have a reservation that highlights precisely the mineral strategy, and we have repeatedly done so during this mandate period. Now it looks like the government is working on some form of mineral strategy to implement the Critical Raw Materials Act. Whether they intend to implement the possibilities to increase the local population's acceptance, we have not even heard anything about. In more places around Sweden, people are now saying no. To continue that path, and to continue saying no, will not benefit anyone. Here we need to have a dialogue about what is actually possible.

Mr. Speaker! This is one of the most important parts. If we are to manage to fulfill the Critical Raw Materials Act, a fast track for critical minerals is needed. The Government cannot continue to send permit applications between the applicant and the responsible authority. If this is to be achieved within the 27 months it will take from being an approved project to obtaining full permits, responsible authorities need to have relevant resources to fulfill it.

(Applause)

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member From, for that Member speaking so positively about the Swedish mining industry! It is good that we at least have a consensus on the mining industry's importance for society.

I live in one of the municipalities the member mentions, namely Gällivare. The member speaks of Gällivare in terms of the state not taking its responsibility. The major social transformation taking place in the two northernmost municipalities in Sweden gained momentum under the Social Democratic-led government. We had a Social Democratic government in Sweden when the broad strokes of this social transformation process were made.

I know that the Social Democratic municipal council in Gällivare and the Centre Party municipal council in Kiruna requested the state's presence. They wanted a lex Malmfälten, and they wanted the help and expertise from the government's side to resolve these knots. The state and the Social Democratic leadership in Sweden did not, however, do this.

Now the member of parliament is talking about how we are somehow to untie the knots in Malmfälten. I don't quite understand what it is we are supposed to do that the Social Democrats did not do during the time when these agreements between the municipalities were actually reached. The social transformation is almost complete in Gällivare, and Kiruna is largely complete. A new center has been built, it is indebted up to its ears, and it has sky-high write-off costs.

I think it is completely incomprehensible that one points at this government. I expect an answer from the member regarding this.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Eric Palmqvist, for the questions!

As I said in my speech, we are reviewing our policy. We have a policy development work specifically in this area. Much of this started during our time. We went to the election on a promise to allocate more money to build new housing. It is something that the Tidö cooperation and the Sverigedemokraterna have been completely active in actually removing. It has been removed at the same time as we have a housing collapse in Sweden.

When the Social Democrats were in government, it was rather an overheating and a price surge. To further fuel this in that situation is not responsible politics. A lot has been built, and has been built, both in Kiruna and in the Malm fields. However, not enough has been built.

Just as Eric Palmqvist also knows, practically half of Gällivare will be removed because that district is disappearing. Entirely new housing will need to be built. To completely place that on the municipality is not reasonable. Of course, the state-owned company must take its responsibility, but infrastructure investments were also needed here. Now, an action plan for the Malmbanan has been presented – according to LKAB, it is far from sufficient – but measures that actually correspond to the situation we are in right now are needed.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member From for the points and the answers – if one is to call them that.

That we have a net loss of housing, especially in Gällivare, is due to the simple circumstance that LKAB is allowed to negotiate with the homeowners and redeem properties. Some then choose to leave the municipality and take the money with them. It is something we in all parties from the municipality's side in Gällivare have thought has been problematic. We have considered that the state-owned company should produce key-for-key properties. Those who then chose to move would sell these properties. They would be on the market.

This is, however, a regulatory framework that LKAB has followed, on the instruction that they have reached agreements with the respective property owners. It is also a regulatory framework that comes from previous governments, so I do not know if the member perhaps has something to say about that.

It is also the case that much of this is a product of the state-owned company LKAB actually not – in a real sense – coordinating these large investments with the owner, i.e. the government.

It is something that has been documented and also criticized, namely that the state – that is, the owner – cannot demand from the state-owned companies that this type of process be coordinated with the owner. Instead, it is based on some kind of voluntariness from the company itself to come to the owner to have a consultation. Therefore, my question is: Is this part of what the Social Democrats say they intend to change in their policy development? It is, in fact, something that we have requested, that we have pointed out as a problem, and that we have wanted to address for a longer period of time.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Something we clearly must address is the large number of bankruptcies and the sky-high unemployment. It will actually be prioritized over everything else, and that involves many different measures.

What is currently relevant is that there are over a thousand vacant jobs in Kiruna but no housing. There is no buildable land. That was my point from the rostrum, that is, whether the question of demand will be addressed in the mineral strategy that is being talked about but which we have seen very little of so far. We have sky-high unemployment in Sweden, but particularly in the mining fields, there are jobs available. It would be possible to move there – if there were houses.

If you move from another part of the country, perhaps you do not buy a house directly, because then it can become like for those at Northvolt who have moved to Skellefteå and bought houses. They are now left completely stranded there. It is not a fun situation. If you are going to move for a job, it is of course reasonable that you get the opportunity for a home, and then a rental apartment is the entry-level option until you settle in the area.

I am completely convinced that more people would consider taking a job in Malmfälten if the opportunities actually existed.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have a couple of follow-up questions for Member From.

I am very happy to hear that the member is so positive towards mining. On that, we agree. It is not every day that one hears from a Social Democrat that he is on board and positive, so that is pleasing.

My question concerns the fact that many of the residents are opponents, which we were touching upon in the previous exchange of remarks. They think that it is troublesome, that they suffer inconveniences from this with mining and so on. I therefore want to know how Member From views the municipal veto. Does he want to keep it, or does he want to phase it out? That is question one.

Question two concerns the permits. It is tricky with the permits, which Member of Parliament From confronted me about in the previous exchange. Therefore, my question is whether the Social Democrats are on board with reforming the Environmental Code and facilitating business establishments and so on. It is precisely impossible, both within the mining industry and when someone is going to build a shipyard out in the archipelago near me. I want to hear how the Member of Parliament and the Social Democrats view those issues.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my previous speech, the jobs and employment opportunities are absolutely crucial.

In our time, we appointed a number of inquiries to move forward with the permit processes and to be able to move from words to action. Many of them have been considered good by the business community, but they have been sitting at the Government Offices. The Tidö parties appointed another inquiry for the permit processes, and that is now being prepared at the Government Offices. The question must therefore go back somewhere. We do not know what will come out of this.

What we see initially, in any case, is that the Tidö parties intend to increase the centralization of decisions and strip the county administrative boards of some of their influence. They want to create a completely new agency – but with the same legislation. I do not believe that people in Oviken or anywhere else will be more impressed by that, given the track record when it comes to the centralization of state agencies and companies to the metropolitan regions and the removal of local influence.

We do need to ensure that there is a dialogue. That dialogue may need to be timed so that one can quickly move on to the actual question of the permit. It is the authorities and the company that agree on how it will proceed. We have several examples where it has worked very well, but we also have many examples where operators do not submit complete applications that the review authorities can actually decide on. The authorities ask follow-up questions to the company that is applying and receive no answer. In that case, it will also be difficult to actually make decisions with a new authority.

Mr. Speaker! We are waiting for the government to get these investigations out. The business community is waiting for it to go faster.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the first question, about the municipal veto, I received no answer. The answer to the second question was: Oh, I see.

I understand from Member From that the Social Democrats, with coalition partners, had an investigation underway that never reached a decision. Why did it not? Was it the Green Party that blocked the investigation during the previous parliamentary term, or what was the reason for that? We would, in fact, have been in favor of changing this to make it easier for companies and new jobs.

The committee members say that there should be a dialogue. If a piece of legislation is changed, it must apply; it becomes difficult with too much rubber and dialogues in the legislation. Here, it must still be a sharp situation, and the reason for reforming the Environmental Code must be that it should become easier to establish companies, easier to establish activities perceived as environmentally disruptive, and so on. Then one must either be on board with it or be against it and have one's own proposal at a vote.

My question is how the Social Democrats stand on that, because I do not think I received any really clear answer, Mr. Speaker.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that the municipalities have a right of veto when it comes to the expansion of wind power, and it is currently harming industrial establishments and investments very much. We think it is reasonable that the municipalities have a right of veto, but that the veto needs to be placed at an earlier stage.

When it comes to mineral policy, there is actually no right of veto. If the operator meets the conditions for a permit for a processing concession, they receive it. If they do not and the mineral is not considered extractable, they do not receive it. Then the environmental issues are examined in the environmental impact assessment, when the environmental permit is obtained.

Kjell Jansson perhaps [will be happy] after there is a ban on extracting gas, oil, and uranium. If the Tidö parties are going to change that, we think it is good that the municipal veto exists there. It is about obtaining acceptance from the local population. But we have, as said, not seen that the Tidö parties have delivered anything for us to take a position on.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the adoption of the proposal in the committee report and the rejection of all motions.

Sweden faces a new era in mineral policy. Our mining and mineral industry has been a cornerstone of our country's industrial success and welfare construction, and in light of the green transition, it becomes even more crucial. We see a growing global demand for critical metals and minerals – resources that are necessary for electrification, fossil-free energy, and digital infrastructure. It is therefore of utmost importance that we ensure a secure, sustainable, and competitive raw material supply.

The government is currently working intensively to develop a new mineral strategy, which will be presented before the summer of 2025. The strategy aims to strengthen Sweden's role as a leading nation in sustainable mining and raw material supply. We are taking a holistic approach to create a modern and efficient mineral policy that both secures the needs of the business sector and safeguards our environmental and social commitments.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long and proud history in mining and mineral extraction. Already during the Middle Ages, we were one of Europe's largest iron producers, and our copper from Falu mine built castles and churches all around the world. Our mineral resources have shaped our country, created prosperity, and laid the foundation for our industrial development. Now it is our turn to shape the future of the mining industry – one that is modern, sustainable, and competitive.

Increased access to minerals and metals is a necessity to enable the green societal construction, strengthen competitiveness, electrify Sweden, and strengthen Swedish defense capability. Sweden is today Europe's leading mining nation, and Sweden shall continue to be so. More mines are needed to reduce Sweden's and the EU's dependence on raw materials from third countries, and the government is therefore working purposefully to streamline the permit processes. At the same time, we shall continue to have high environmental requirements.

One of the government's priorities is to ensure a more predictable and efficient permit process for mineral extraction. Excessively long and uncertain processes create obstacles for investments and innovation within the mining industry. Therefore, we are now taking measures to improve predictability in the review processes and simplify the rules for prospecting. At the same time, it is clear that the Environmental Code shall continue to play an important role in these reviews.

Another important initiative is our work to strengthen the Geological Survey of Sweden, SGU, in its mission to map ore-potential areas and develop methods to secure Swedish raw material supply. This is central for us to be able to identify and extract the minerals that are crucial for the green transition and technological development.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish mining industry is significant for the EU. I think it is worth mentioning which minerals and metals are found in Sweden. Over 90 percent of the EU's iron ore production comes from Sweden. Sweden also accounts for 45 percent of the EU's production of lead and for about one third of the union's production of zinc. Sweden also contributes a large part of the production of gold, silver, and copper.

Sweden has a strategic position in the EU's work to secure the supply of critical raw materials. We already have a central role in the union's mineral supply, not least through our iron ore and zinc production. The government supports the EU's goal to increase domestic production, processing, and recycling of critical raw materials to reduce dependence on external actors. By taking an active role in the implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act, we ensure that Sweden continues to be a leading supplier of sustainably extracted raw materials in Europe.

Mr. Speaker! To ensure that Swedish iron ore can continue to contribute to Europe's raw material supply, investments in infrastructure are also required. Malmbanan is a pulse artery for the Swedish mining industry and a prerequisite for our country to be able to deliver iron ore in an efficient and sustainable way. We Christian Democrats in the government have therefore prioritized the expansion and upgrading of Malmbanan to increase capacity and reduce the bottlenecks that threaten Sweden's export of important minerals. It is with these investments that we strengthen Sweden's competitiveness and ensure that the Swedish mining industry can continue to be an engine in the green transition.

Madam Speaker! I also want to advocate for the newly established green acceleration office. The office is led by two industry coordinators who are to increase the pace of Sweden's decision-making processes in order to facilitate corporate investments that make Sweden greener and wealthier. This also includes establishments within the mining cluster. The work shall promote coordination between public and private actors. The industry coordinators have the task of bringing all relevant parties – for example, authorities, municipalities, and companies needed in a decision-making process – to the same table in order to move projects forward quickly together.

The government's mineral policy is about uniting industrial development with sustainability. By ensuring a competitive mining industry, fast and legally secure permit processes, and responsible environmental management, we are building a long-term and sustainable raw material supply. The upcoming mineral strategy will provide clear guidelines for how Sweden should continue to develop its mineral policy in a time when raw materials are becoming an increasingly important strategic issue.

Before I conclude my speech, I want to highlight the positive development in the attitude of Swedes towards the mining industry. According to a recent survey from the Geological Survey of Sweden and Novus, conducted in December 2024, 74 percent of Sweden's inhabitants between 18 and 79 years of age believe that the mining industry is important for the Swedish economy. Furthermore, the majority want the Swedish mining industry to be given the right conditions to secure the supply of metals vital to society. This positive development regarding attitude is evidence that our efforts to promote a sustainable and competitive mining industry are appreciated by the public. It gives us further motivation to continue on the path we have taken and ensure that Sweden remains a leading nation within the mining and mineral industry.

In conclusion, I want to highlight the importance of having an open and fact-based debate on mineral policy. It is not either/or – we can and shall both protect our environment and strengthen our industry.

Sweden has every opportunity to lead the way for a sustainable and responsible mining industry. That is also exactly what we are doing. With the right decisions today, we create jobs, innovation, and growth for the future.

I move again for approval of the committee's proposal, Madam Speaker.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! During last year's mineral policy debate in this chamber, I pointed out that in the history of humanity, a number of discoveries have been made that have come to mean paradigm shifts in humanity's development. They have come to define who we are and how we live today. One such shift came with man's ability to tame fire. Another shift occurred when we invented the wheel. Today we can also state that our ancestors' discoveries of metals and minerals, as well as their development of methods to take advantage of the different and unique properties of these, have been of immense importance for humanity's development.

Until a few thousand years ago, we were Stone Age people who relied on tools of stone, clay, and wood. Then something happened. Our ancestors discovered how to harness metals and manufacture objects from them. This led to humanity being able to begin manufacturing tools of bronze, which was followed by iron and thereafter by further metals.

Today we see how this development continues as we learn to extract and utilize rare earth metals that, just a few decades ago, we did not know what to do with, even though we knew they existed in our bedrock. It is a dizzying thought that our ancestors' discoveries are an absolute prerequisite for much of what we take for granted today and actually also form the basis for what we are debating here, namely the Committee on Industry's report 18 Mineralpolitik.

Earlier today, I was on an interesting study visit to a modern construction company. After an interesting presentation at their office, we visited one of their current construction projects. There, it became apparent how important the access to metals and minerals is. Metal piles were driven into the ground. Reinforcing bars were used during casting. Cranes, trucks, and construction machinery were, of course, made of metal. One of the trucks was electric-driven, and as you know, this presupposes access to metals and minerals that we have not previously mined in any significant extent.

One can simply state that the existence as we know it today would be a utopia – an impossibility – without metals and minerals. Without the ability to extract and process metals and minerals, we would simply still be Stone Age people; that is the stark truth. It would mean a life without cars, hip replacements, bicycles, smartphones, pacemakers, subways and so on. You surely understand that the list can be made infinitely long.

As I just mentioned, the development is moving forward rapidly. We are therefore discovering more areas of application for our metals and minerals, while simultaneously learning to take advantage of several of the metals and minerals that we previously did not see the use of. These are circumstances that move both our innovation-driven industry and our society forward. In many respects, it can be rightly stated that it is also a development that serves all of humanity well.

Nationally, the rich availability of metals and minerals in combination with diligence, know-how, and a fantastic industry has constituted a recipe for success for Sweden. Nothing actually indicates either that this would not also apply in the future we can foresee – this provided that we manage our assets and conditions in a wise manner.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we have good access to first-class raw materials. The mineral deposits are many, but the path to transforming these into ore is long, costly, and complex. It must, therefore, be both possible and profitable to extract them. Neither hip prostheses nor ball bearings grow on trees; one must first find the metals and then be allowed to extract them. This is followed by several stages of processing, which we are good at in Sweden. All this gives rise to so-called value chains that are very valuable for us as a nation.

The Tidö parties have agreed that this is important and that Sweden's position as a mining nation needs to be strengthened. Even if we are not in complete agreement on exactly everything, it is clear that the work is moving in the right direction and that the signals to both industry and the rest of the world are that we strive to achieve a higher degree of self-sufficiency of metals and minerals in the shaky world we now find ourselves in.

That we, in a situation where there is obvious great power rivalry over critical raw materials, are to a large extent dependent on imports of metals and minerals from dictatorships and rogue states where respect for the environment or human rights is non-existent is not reasonable, especially in those cases where the same metals exist in our bedrock without us actually mining them. Here, both new rules and a change in attitude are needed, and I am convinced that the new mineral strategy for Sweden that the government is now working on and that we have called for for a long time will point the direction in a good way.

The government has established both a regulatory simplification council and an implementation council, and we hope that, in the long run, these will produce proposals that mean that over-implementation of EU rules will be a thing of the past.

The environmental permit investigation is on its way to resulting in a government bill that will likely entail a number of important changes for the mining nation Sweden. I must, however, emphasize that there is a long way to go before we can see the final product, so even though I look forward to this bill with confidence, I choose not to claim any victories in advance.

I nevertheless assume that we are moving towards permit processes that will be perceived as more transparent and legally secure, have clearer time limits, and be partially differently structured. I assume that proposals will be settled that mean that earlier in the permit process, it will be examined whether a submitted application is complete so that any supplements can be requested before the review takes place. This would mean fewer interrupted and delayed environmental permit reviews.

It is my hope that much of what is currently underway in the mineral policy area can actually seriously strengthen Sweden as a mining nation.

As a curiosity in this context, I can mention that before today's debate, I took pleasure in making a small historical look back. I looked at the Sweden Democrats' mineral policy committee motion from 2021/22, which was our last motion in the area before the 2022 election. I could then observe that of that motion's 19 demands, at least 13 are now in one way or another on their way to being implemented as part of the Tidö parties' cooperation.

Madam Speaker! A new era brings new challenges and requires new solutions and thus also a new policy. New knowledge and insights, together with a new and uncertain geopolitical situation, highlight our own capacity for self-sufficiency both within the nation and together with our closest trading partners within the European Union.

The pandemic a few years ago showed that the formulations in the legislation regulating prospecting were not at all adapted for a crisis, and the ban on prospecting for coal, gas, and oil that the previous government introduced testifies to the cluelessness that prevailed before Russia's violation of international law in its invasion of Ukraine. From a preparedness perspective, it is at least my and the Sverigedemokraternas conviction that it was a stupid decision that should be rolled back. The legislation in the area must be designed so that it does not hinder Sweden in a crisis or war.

Previous governments also introduced restrictions against extracting metals and minerals from alumschist, and I wonder why. I understand that it is complex and complicated to extract raw materials from alumschist in a way that does not involve an environmental risk, but that is precisely why we have the Environmental Code. Our view is that it is challenges and difficulties that drive innovation. The Environmental Code shall set the framework for which environmental impact is acceptable or not – this regardless of which bedrock any potential mining takes place in. Period.

I have practically never heard a company in the industry criticize the Environmental Code in itself. Most consider it to be good, even if they also express that it can be modernized or clarified. But in substance, the entire industry agrees that strict environmental rules should prevail. It is even perceived as a competitive advantage for the Swedish mining industry. Can we then not agree that from the political side, we draw up the rules for what environmental impact is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and that the companies then have to comply with that?

If one can then show that one can develop techniques and methods for mining in challenging bedrock, that is something we should applaud, not forbid. That is how one stimulates innovation.

Another unfortunate decision that cannot be overlooked in this debate is the so-called uranium ban which was introduced in 2018 by the then S-MP government. We were against it in 2018, and we are still against it in 2025. If the old arguments that Sweden is a nuclear power nation that could be self-sufficient in uranium are not enough, there are new arguments. We know that the prospecting companies are finding it increasingly difficult to find sought-after, rare earth metals, and uranium is an important lead metal that, simply put, often occurs where what one is actually looking for also exists, but in lower concentrations. Therefore, it is very satisfying that the government now, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, is about to make concessions in the uranium ban.

The fact that we have seen the highest electricity prices in Sweden ever since the premature decommissioning of Swedish nuclear reactors has led the Tidö government to conclude that new nuclear power is needed. Why then not open up to supplying these reactors with domestic fuel? The fact that Sweden is a modern mining nation with strict environmental legislation paves the way for us to be able to do this in the best possible way. Are there really good reasons for us to constantly be import-dependent on a fuel that exists in our own bedrock?

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of the government carefully considering a review of the regulatory frameworks that govern the compensation to landowners and affected municipalities and regions. It cannot be overemphasized how important this is for creating social acceptance among those who are most affected by the environmental interventions that are actually at issue. When we debated regional development in the chamber some time ago, it also became clear that there are more and more proposals from the parties in the Riksdag moving in this direction. Even though the proposals and solutions differ, it is clear that the purpose is the same. I am convinced that the Sverigedemokraterna's proposal for a regionalization of the property tax for industrial properties and power production facilities could contribute in a positive way.

The most important message in this context, however, is that it is time for the local communities to be compensated better than they are today, not least against the background that the workforce often comes from outside and thus does not pay tax in the municipality where the mining activity takes place.

Madam Speaker! I apologize for exceeding my pre-announced speaking time and conclude by pointing out that I naturally stand behind all of the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the committee report, but I will content myself with moving for the approval of reservation 13, in accordance with the agreement to move for the approval of only one reservation per party.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe I must correct Eric Palmqvist slightly. No ban was introduced. However, a suitability requirement for extraction from alunschist was introduced. Many, however, want a ban on such extraction. For example, the extraction of shale oil and natural gas from alunschist was banned, but also other things. It is this that applies.

When it comes to the conditions and what is appropriate, the mining of alunschist can often release lead or cadmium. This therefore does not only apply when one is looking for uranium. Lead or cadmium can be very dangerous if it ends up in the drinking water. That is what I have been told.

I will move on to my question. We need to ensure the supply of critical minerals and metals. That is why the EU Commission has now granted the recycling project Northcycle a permit according to the Critical Raw Materials Act. Can Eric Palmqvist here in the chamber say that the Sweden Democrats will not oppose this project?

It is a necessary project where metals are to be recycled from batteries. This we should be able to do despite that the Sweden Democrats have signaled a large opposition to both battery production and Northvolt. Now the EU Commission has decided that Northcycle is an important project. Despite that Northvolt has gone bankrupt, the project is seen as completely crucial and a step on the way towards recycling more batteries. What does Eric Palmqvist say?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member From, for the questions!

It is correct that there is no absolute ban on the mining of alunschist, but strong restrictions were introduced. I maintain that the restrictions that shall apply are those found in the Environmental Code. The restrictions shall not be determined by the bedrock or how complicated it is to mine in or conduct mining in, but the restrictions shall be assessed individually for each project.

I am not sufficiently well-informed about the project that Member From is asking about. I will willingly admit that. However, we are not against battery manufacturing in itself. We are against battery manufacturing when it is primarily financed through state funds, various green transition grants, or the like, i.e., when it does not occur on strictly commercial grounds. In those cases, we have reservations.

It is the same thing with the project. Provided that it takes place on commercial grounds and that it is not the taxpayers in Europe or Sweden who have to foot the bill, whether it goes well or poorly, I have no principled objections to recycling metals and minerals that have already been mined once. On the contrary, it is something positive.

It actually concerns all projects where we take care of things that we have already extracted from our ground. It is win-win to avoid extracting virgin material when that is possible. I cannot see that the Sweden Democrats would have any principled objections to battery metals and battery minerals being recycled.

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! It is good that Eric Palmqvist says so, because it is clear that what politics expresses has great significance for what the business community wants to proceed with. If the government parties signal a large opposition, no more private capital will come. If it is signaled that one does not believe in anything, the business community will not want to invest.

My final question to Eric Palmqvist is: Do the Sweden Democrats and Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch's idea to apply for a European battery project? If such a project is to become a reality in Sweden, it will require Swedish co-financing.

There are many projects that utilize tax funds. One invests tax funds. Many of them generate funds back. Some do not. The prerequisite for Ebba Busch to bring a European battery project to Sweden is Swedish co-financing. Does Eric Palmqvist support that?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Politics should rake the arena, but it is actually the business sector that must make the investments. If the business sector wants to make those types of investments, I do not see us opposing it, but it is still not the taxpayers who should have to take the big risk. If the risk is great, there is actually venture capital that the industry, in this case, should utilize.

One has to judge it from project to project. We cannot have some kind of carte blanche just because it is called batteries. There is a demand for batteries – that we agree on – but I cannot stand here and promise a carte blanche for just battery manufacturing or battery recycling.

I have a question. I know that the member cannot give any answer now, and I have to leave it hanging in the air. The Malmbanan has been mentioned several times in the rostrum today. The Sweden Democrats have several times raised the question of a possible OPS solution for Malmbanan, but I experience that the Social Democrats have chosen not to answer the question.

Perhaps I can later in the chamber get an answer on how the Social Democrats view a potential OPS solution when it comes to the Malmbanan. As we see it, it would be a way to get started with the expansion and capacity expansion of Malmbanan faster than what would be the case if it is included in the infrastructure plan. It would be interesting to have a conversation with MP From about that matter after the debate has ended.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Without metals and minerals, it is not possible to produce the products needed for the green societal transition. Wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars and batteries – all require those metals as raw materials.

It is naturally a challenge, as metals and minerals need to be extracted, often with larger or smaller interventions in nature. This must be respected. This leads to both ideological and moral questions.

The interventions are not less significant because they are carried out somewhere else. The impact on nature and climate emissions, for example, are not lower because they occur in Congo instead of in Sweden. It is perhaps precisely the opposite. The Swedish mining and mineral industry already has low climate emissions in an international comparison today, thanks to our almost fossil-free electricity system and the investments that many Swedish companies have made in new, climate-efficient technology.

Sweden has the opportunity to take greater global responsibility for the climate transition by taking advantage of the opportunities in the Swedish mining industry. There, we in politics have a role to play. With the right conditions from us, the industry can be developed and contribute not only to the Swedish economy but also to the global climate work.

As mentioned here in the chamber earlier this evening, Sweden has the potential to extract many of the energy- and innovation-critical metals and minerals that we need.

Half of the metals and minerals on the EU's list of raw materials deemed critical for our society and welfare have been found in the Swedish bedrock.

If the Swedish mining industry is to be able to utilize the raw materials that actually exist and be able to continue its production, be innovative and have the lead when it comes to the green transition, which I perceive many companies in Sweden within the mining industry have, we need from politics to handle the problems we have in, for example, our base load and when it comes to the shortage of energy production.

We need to look at the difficulties that exist in the business sector with obtaining qualified labor. This applies in particular within the technology industries. We need many more engineers in Sweden, and we need many more students who seek out STEM education. But we also need to review the permit processes and significantly shorten the lead times to get in place, for example, the necessary infrastructure. This naturally applies not only in northern Sweden but in all of Sweden.

We see that an increased production of metals and minerals from secondary sources, more recycling, and a more efficient use of metals and minerals will be needed. It is important to emphasize that. But it also needs to be emphasized that it will not cover the entire future metal demand, which the climate transition entails.

We find it difficult to avoid the fact that we need to have an increased production of raw materials in Sweden if we are to be able to secure the needs of the future. We have a great geological potential to extract precisely those raw materials that are critical for the entire transition. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal in the report.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservations 3 and 19.

Sweden is dependent on importing certain minerals from countries where consideration for the consequences of extraction for the environment and human rights is deficient. It is deeply regrettable, and therefore Sweden must take greater responsibility for its mineral consumption. At the same time, we must ensure that extraction in Sweden takes place in environmentally sustainable forms and with respect for local communities and indigenous peoples' rights. We must also support third countries in terms of using more sustainable methods and respecting human rights – if we have an interest in their minerals. It is not an easy balancing act.

A central issue in this debate is the mining of alunschiefer (alum shale). Alunschiefer is a rock type that contains valuable minerals, such as molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, and uranium. But mining entails enormous environmental risks. During extraction, heavy metals and toxic substances can be released, which threatens both groundwater and surface water. Large parts of Sweden's most fertile agricultural land are found on alunschiefer, which means that mining also threatens our food supply. A large number of municipalities and environmental organizations have warned against these risks.

The Government proposes stricter rules for the mining of alunschist and intends with this to keep the door open for future mining when it comes to alunschist. Vänsterpartiet argues that the risks are too great and that there is currently no technology that can guarantee safe mining.

I was in Östersund on Monday, where several companies have been granted permission to prospect for alum shale. One company has even applied to open an open-pit mine. The consequences would involve several municipalities' water supply and food production.

It is not possible to experiment when it comes to mining. The consequences are enormous when dangerous substances are released into nature. We therefore believe that the mining of alumschist should be prohibited and that the Mining Act should be amended to clearly prevent exploitation of these areas. This is a crucial issue for Sweden's environmental protection and for future generations.

It is also important to highlight Sweden's import of minerals and metals from conflict areas. I particularly want to mention minerals from Congo. Congo is rich in minerals such as cobalt and tantalum, which are crucial for battery production and electronics. At the same time, the mineral extraction represents a catastrophe for human rights. Armed groups control many mines and finance their activities by selling the minerals, often through smuggling via Rwanda and other neighboring countries.

The UN and human rights organizations have reported on child labor, sexual violence, and brutal abuses linked to the mining industry. And today, millions are in flight in Congo.

It is completely unacceptable that Swedish companies purchase minerals without knowing under which conditions they have been extracted. We must set much stricter requirements for transparency and ethical imports. Our responsibility is clear. It is enough to read about the credit guarantees provided by the Export Credit Board despite the fact that there were human rights violations and contamination of land and water.

Vänsterpartiet advocates for an active industrial policy where Sweden takes responsibility for both reducing the dependence on conflict minerals and ensuring that all domestic mining is carried out in a sustainable and fair manner. We want the Geological Survey of Sweden to be given greater responsibility for the entire process – from prospecting to recycling – and that the recycling of metals should be given a much more central role in Sweden's mineral supply. It is completely unreasonable that we today mine new minerals while tons of metals go to waste in waste and electronic scrap.

Furthermore, we believe that the mineral royalty should be increased and that the revenues from the mining industry should be returned to a greater extent to the local communities that are affected. This would provide other opportunities for the municipalities that are affected by mineral exploitation. I say affected, because mining does not only provide jobs. It affects the environment. Transport routes need to be created and maintained. The community must prepare to receive those who are to work in and around the mine.

We also want to see a regressive mineral royalty, where companies that further process their raw materials locally receive lower mineral fees. In that way, more of the value from the mineral extraction would be given to the local community. More of that value would remain in Sweden and contribute to jobs and development where it is truly needed.

Madam Speaker! Mining always involves environmental impact, but we have a choice: Either we continue with a predatory exploitation that harms people and the environment, or we transition to a sustainable mineral policy where circular economy, recycling, and respect for human rights are at the center.

We in Vänsterpartiet know which path we want to take. We hope that more parties are prepared to take that responsibility together with us.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lorena Delgado Varas, for the contribution to this debate! I have a couple of quite concrete questions for the member. The first is whether the member does not trust that environmental assessments carried out by our Swedish expert agencies are conducted in an adequate manner. The member paints the Swedish mining industry as highly problematic and in terms of communities being "affected" by mining and so on. I also want to ask if the member's description of communities as "affected" by mining is symptomatic of the entire Left Party's view on the Swedish mining industry.

I know that when Northland, as it was called when it started, went bankrupt, people in Pajala stood and cried with banners with the text "save the mine". I think that Kiruna would practically not exist as a city in Sweden if it were not for LKAB. Gällivare, where I myself live, is not "affected" by any mining. There are absolutely challenges that follow in the wake of mining. But Gällivare is not "affected" by the mining. If Aitik and LKAB, on the other hand, did not exist in Gällivare, it would be affected. Then Gällivare would hardly exist.

Is the Left Party's view on the Swedish mining industry that it is something that "affects" communities?

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member has misunderstood me. When I say "affected," I mean how the environment is impacted and that mining actually means that municipalities must work much harder with social development. It is not always that one receives the resources required to be able to maintain the service. We want a larger part of the profit that the mining industry creates to go to the local communities so that they can do so.

There are more problems, for example that one does not succeed in building enough housing for both those who work within the mining industry and those who work in companies around the mining industry. Furthermore, one can have problems with the maintenance of transport routes and so on. Then one must take more responsibility, so that the municipalities do not stand alone. But it is clear that the mining industry is important, and it creates jobs. I have no problem standing behind that.

The committee members asked if I do not trust the environmental assessment and our authorities. I do, but I think there are problems. I believe no one in this room can deny that. One example is the area around Storsjön. Quite a few companies have been granted the right to begin prospecting there. One has also gone quite far in the case regarding open-pit mines. A problem arises there. There is not a single researcher in Sweden today who can say that there are sustainable extraction methods when it comes to alum shale. It creates a secondary problem.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the clarification! I took note of what the Member said about communities being "affected," but I share the view that a larger part of the profit should go to the community. On the other hand, I see a challenge with an increase in the mineral fee. The matter can certainly be investigated. Sverigedemokraterna has submitted proposals on that. But one must keep in mind that the mineral fee can be seen as part of the total cost burden for mining.

Sweden actually ranks at the top. We are among the most expensive countries in the world when it comes to producing a ton of ore by extracting it from underground during the day and processing or enriching it. It is incredibly expensive. It is also the case that if we choose to tinker with the mineral fee, we need to lower some other fee in order not to ruin the Swedish mining industry.

I am absolutely open to dialogue regarding the mineral fee, but one must realize that you cannot raise it without turning some other screws in the other direction. Has Vänsterpartiet considered that thought? I wonder if you view the mining industry as something where you can just extract even more tax.

It is also the case that the infrastructure the member spoke about is not primarily municipal but state-owned. There is other infrastructure – roads and the like – which is municipal and is actually affected by the mining operations. But that is actually a different matter. I would like to have a clarification from Vänsterpartiet on how one views this as a whole.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the various permit processes, we have a situation right now around Lake Storsjön. A large part of the land is restricted. One cannot make any changes or process the land in any way. That is how it has been for 20 years now. It is quite burdensome for smaller municipalities, such as those around Lake Storsjön.

It can also be questioned whether one should proceed with permit processes regarding mining for a type of rock where there are currently no extraction methods that are sufficiently analyzed, researched, or implemented. There are several examples around the world, which do not directly concern alumschist but similar rocks, where it has not worked. In, for example, the USA and China, it has had enormous environmental consequences. We also have examples from Sweden where alumschist was mined during the 60s. In those areas, there are still quite high levels of toxic substances. Those areas have simply had to be isolated.

It is a rather big problem, I would say, that one proceeds with permit processes even though one knows that the operation will not work in reality. In that case, isn't it better to shut it down and let the local population use their area in the right way?

Regarding municipal versus state infrastructure, I mentioned roads. It may be required to have both wider roads and new roads to handle the transport. We have seen quite a few examples of that. It means that the municipalities must sacrifice land that they could otherwise use for something else.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! In a time when both Sweden and the EU face an enormous green transition where fossil energy is to be replaced with renewable energy and climate-neutral technology, it is clear that the need for metals and minerals is increasing sharply. Electrification of transport, expansion of wind power and battery storage rely on access to raw materials such as cobalt, lithium, graphite and rare earth metals.

We in the Center Party have worked with this challenge for over 20 years. We want Sweden to be a leading country in the climate transition, because we are convinced that it is good for our growth and our jobs and thus our prosperity. But it also requires that a clear responsibility is taken for how the resources required are obtained.

It is a balancing act between the fact that it must go faster to get permits, that all costs are borne by the one who extracts the mineral, and that the municipalities must be able to earn money by saying yes to mining.

Firstly, we want to secure access to critical and innovation-critical metals and minerals. They are absolutely crucial for the green transition and our own security of supply. But it is not enough to just point out the potential in the Swedish bedrock. Sweden must simultaneously modernize the permitting processes, invest in better mapping, and stimulate recycling from secondary sources. Here, the government, despite the acceleration office, has acted somewhat too passively. Very few processes are run in parallel, and much more needs to be done.

However, considerable investigative resources have been allocated to ensure that it is possible to extract uranium in Sweden. We must remember that uranium is not classified as either critical or strategic by the EU. I have no problem with nuclear power in Sweden, but there are many who believe that we must have our own uranium to be able to drive future nuclear power plants. In that case, it will be very exciting to see the bill that must be drafted. If that attitude prevails, it means that the companies that would potentially find it economical to mine uranium in Sweden must promise to sell everything on the local market. As far as I know, we have no such legislation in any other area.

Known uranium deposits in Sweden exist, with one exception – I believe it is in Norrbotten – in areas with alumschist. These deposits contain uranium but also amounts of other metals. Many of them, such as cadmium, arsenic, and lead, are toxic and not suitable to be near drinking water. They must be washed out of the alumschist. Today, there is no known way to do this in a safe way. It has only been done in laboratories and on PowerPoint slides. I have great confidence in the Swedish environmental assessment, so from what I can see, alumschist will not be able to be mined for many years.

Let me stop here for a moment. It is still strange that we have new technology for chemical extraction that is to go directly from a laboratory to full scale. This risks the drinking water for several municipalities. There should perhaps be a requirement for a pilot plant as an intermediate step. But in Sweden, we have never had new methods for extraction by chemical means in this way. This should probably be included in the decision-making chain and the environmental assessment.

Centerpartiet says no, of course, to the mining of uranium.

Secondly, it must be clear that those who mine ore also take full financial responsibility for the environmental costs that arise. All too often, society has had to foot the bill for the remediation of old mines. That is not acceptable. For a market-liberal party like Centerpartiet, the polluter pays principle is completely central. The companies that profit from extracting our common natural resources must also cover remediation, post-treatment, and restoration. It is fair for the taxpayers, and it is fair towards other companies.

Therefore, economic guarantees and scrutiny of business models for extraction with new methods are extremely important, and I ask myself whether our authorities really have that capability and are up to date on what these new methods entail.

For the third, we argue that municipalities and local communities affected by mining must receive a larger share of the value created. Today we see how communities in northern Sweden not only have to bear the consequences of large industrial interventions but also the costs this entails for small municipalities without receiving the economic return they would like to have. It is obviously not sustainable. Even though traditional mining areas show very great interest in new establishments, the acceptance for new mines continues to fall. Therefore, there must be fair and clear compensation models.

We want the mineral compensation to be reviewed for both landowners and municipalities. A fair compensation is not only morally important, but it is actually a prerequisite for long-term legitimacy for mining in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We need a policy that holds together climate ambitions, environmental responsibility, and the local perspective. There is no contradiction between mining critical minerals and taking environmental considerations into account if we do it the right way. In this regard, Sweden can be the best in the world. We have the technology, we have the raw materials, we have responsible companies, but we must also have a policy that enables sustainable extraction without compromising social or ecological sustainability.

We want to see a mining and mineral policy that is future-oriented but also rooted in responsibility. We want to see a policy where mines operated in Sweden are world-leading, not only in efficiency, but also in environmental performance and social acceptance.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 15 under point 5.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been a mining nation for hundreds of years, and the mineral extraction taking place in Sweden's 13 mines today is not only important for Sweden but for all of Europe. As everyone knows, Sweden, for example, accounts for more than 90 percent of all iron ore produced in Europe. The importance of this ore is noted, not least through the Critical Raw Materials Act and the EU's strategically identified new projects.

The mining industry will, however, always have a significant environmental impact, which needs to be managed. Today, the mining industry is the largest waste producer in our country. The mining companies are some of the companies in Sweden that emit the most carbon dioxide. Furthermore, mining often affects water and the immediate environment for the local population, while the reindeer husbandry is becoming increasingly squeezed. I have spoken about this before.

Today, the discussion is about the need for preparedness and security, as well as the need for more electricity and more minerals for the green transition. The green transition means that some new mines will need to be opened, while other mines, such as coal mines and brown coal open-cast mines, will be closed. Every new mine involves a large environmental impact and gives rise to various goal conflicts. The mining and mineral industry has itself developed climate goals within the framework of Fossil-free Sweden. The industries will need to work actively to ensure that these goals are met. In that case, it is important that politics supports the transition.

Mr. Speaker! For the entire green transition to be truly green and for the transition itself to be both environmentally and socially sustainable, a great deal is required of us. It is required that we take the issue seriously and that we make a plan for how a transition can take place in a way that is good for most of us. We must jointly plan for a transition that is carried out in a responsible manner. The same naturally also applies to Sweden's mining. If new mining is to seriously become a part of the green transition, the transition must also encompass the mining itself.

Mr. Speaker! There is a risk now that it will become a bit repetitive, as I spoke about this here also in last year's debate. It is about the need for a new strategy for a truly sustainable mineral and metal supply. I want to repeat how Miljöpartiet wants a new strategy to look. It should have four important focus areas for a more sustainable mineral and metal supply. If I repeat what we want to see, there is perhaps a chance that something will appear in the government's upcoming strategy.

First of all, there is a focus area concerning resource efficiency and increased circularity, something we would like to see in the new metal and mineral strategy. We need to use the materials we have in a much better way. We need to share more, manufacture smarter products with less amount of metal, and recycle the metal that we have already extracted.

Metals can be reused from existing scrap heaps and recycled products, but there is also an opportunity to extract valuable resources from old mine waste and mine tailings. This can involve metals that in another time were seen as uninteresting or difficult to obtain. We need to make it both economically and technically possible to use all these different resources from different parts of our environment.

It is very positive that the EU Commission is also now signaling the importance of recycling and circularity in the strategic projects and in the Critical Raw Materials Act, which was presented yesterday. But politically, there is much more that needs to be done so that the metals and minerals that have already been mined can be used over and over again.

We in Miljöpartiet want, among other things, to see a new circularity step for critical metals and minerals which, similar to the Industrial Step, can be used for expenditures linked to research and investments that contribute to increasing the industry's capacity to create circular flows.

Focus area 2 is about ensuring research and development of alternative materials. We need to develop the products that are needed for the green transition in order to be able to use more types of materials, where it is possible.

A clear example is batteries where lithium has been replaced with sodium, which is found in common sea salt. The studies that have been conducted on these batteries show that they can be much more climate-friendly than batteries with lithium, and furthermore, sodium exists in large quantities across our entire planet because the salt is in the oceans.

It has also become clear that Sweden can become much better at supporting research, development, and skills supply within all parts of the mineral and metal area. Already today we are lagging behind in some sectors, not least battery manufacturing, but developing products where we can use less hard-to-access materials can help us increase Sweden's and Europe's preparedness.

Regarding focus area number 3, we believe that Sweden should have the world's most sustainable mining industry. Mining and mineral processing must occur as sustainably as possible, both socially and ecologically. We cannot conduct important and strategic activities without a strong sustainability aspect. This applies to the environment and climate, but also to the working environment and human rights, where the local population also needs to be involved in a better way. It is important that fast tracks do not mean reduced requirements for environmentally sustainable management.

Finally, we need to ensure sustainable value chains globally. It is of course not only the Swedish mining industry that must be socially and ecologically sustainable. When we trade minerals, we need to cooperate, have common guidelines, and set requirements both within and outside the EU to avoid everything from child labor to environmental disasters in other parts of the world. Here, it is important that we maintain our sustainability legislation to ensure that the mining industry in different countries cannot gain competitive advantages by weakening occupational health and safety legislation or work on protecting the environment and climate.

We believe that all our four focus areas need to be included in a new national strategy for a sustainable mineral and metal supply.

Many major goal conflicts arise when new mines are to be put into operation. It can involve land conflicts, negative consequences for the environment, impact on the Sami people's lives and rights and on reindeer husbandry, as well as effects for the local population. Now that we see increased pressure on Sweden to deliver minerals for Europe's collective transition work, the Swedish state also needs to be tasked with securing the Swedish environment, the Swedish population, Sweden's local environments, our waters, our lands, and the local population's rights. For, as I have emphasized even before, if we destroy our water, our food, or our land, what will we use the minerals for? Here, the goal conflicts should not be particularly difficult.

Miljöpartiet considers that a reinforced effort is needed moving forward so that we can meet the transition in a sustainable way – to ensure that we can make the transition and halt the climate crisis without destroying other areas and thereby depleting, for example, biodiversity or people's living environment or health.

Mr. Speaker! In order to strengthen and ensure a sustainable and responsible mining system, we believe that a larger holistic approach needs to be taken when planning new mines – it concerns everything from prospecting to the closure of a mine. For example, one would already from the beginning need to plan and finance a future restoration of areas affected by the mining.

Since the local community is often affected the most while the profits from more metal are primarily made nationally or internationally, we believe that a portion of the profits should go back to the local community. How the profits should go back to the local community we need to investigate further. But it is clear that the state, for example, would need to take a greater responsibility to support the municipalities in the work with, for example, housing construction and investments in infrastructure when new large mining projects are planned. If this is to be funded with revenues from mining, with a mineral fee or in some other way can be discussed, but it is completely unreasonable that the municipalities themselves should bear a large risk at a new establishment without being helped by those who profit the most from the mining establishment.

We have today a situation where in many areas we see accumulated negative effects, for example for the local population or the reindeer husbandry, of several large societal investments. It can be about wind power, transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure or mineral mining. The sum of the different effects must be taken into account in the decision-making processes. Therefore, we need to plan both long-term and wisely, and the local population needs to be involved in these processes – not run over.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to point out that Miljöpartiet wants to see a continued ban on uranium mining in Sweden as well as a ban on the extraction of alum shale.

Mining of uranium causes damage to people and nature. When uranium ore is mined, radioactive gases and radioactive dust are released. Radioactive decay products also remain in the mine waste and risk leaking out. At the current stage, there are also great uncertainties regarding the final disposal of mine waste from uranium mining.

Your slate mining also risks various heavy metals and toxins leaking out. The historical extraction has, despite a very small scale in Sweden, caused environmental problems that continue to need to be managed.

Uran mining has been prohibited in Sweden since 2018, and we think it would be irresponsible to open up for uranium mining in Sweden. The mining industry that the Green Party wants to see and that should be developed in Sweden shall enable the technology of the future and not that of yesterday. It must live up to high environmental requirements and not be forced through at the expense of the immediate environment and the local community's development.

Mr. Speaker! We need to halt the climate crisis, and at the same time, we need to ensure that we achieve a socially sustainable society and that we safeguard biodiversity, our waters, and our living environments. People living in mining areas need to be able to live good lives, and the green transition needs to become just green. With all this said, I therefore move for the approval of Miljöpartiet's reservation number 4 in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 March.)

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