(cont. from § 7) Appropriate safety and radiation protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials (cont. NU27)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned safety and radiation protection requirements during the extraction and processing of nuclear materials as well as the municipalities' influence. S argued that the proposal incorrectly removed the municipalities' right of veto and influence, and imposed rescue service duties on them without financial compensation 1. S considered it reasonable to extract uranium from secondary mine waste and that municipalities should receive cost coverage for competence enhancement within the rescue service 1 2 3. SD argued that uranium should be treated like any other mineral 4. SD argued that there is no uranium mining in Sweden today and that the rescue service is normally financed through the jobs created by the mining industry 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! We now return to the debate on the Committee on Industry's report NU27, which concerns appropriate safety and radiation protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials.
The proposal contains, in addition to the absolutely necessary legislative changes, a clear position regarding the removal of local influence from the municipalities concerned. It also removes the veto right that the municipalities have had regarding this activity. This is noteworthy.
Madam Speaker! Just as we touched upon earlier, there are today more than 800 exploration permits in 112 different municipalities. Many of the municipalities have no or very little experience of extraction or mining activities. This creates a considerable concern, as the Tidö parties are to a very large extent pushing for that uranium should be able to be extracted even from alunschist.
This is what we have motioned for. It may therefore seem remarkable that one promised already in February and as recently as during the question period that the municipalities shall have influence and that a veto shall be investigated. It also states on the government's website how the veto can be added retroactively. But, Madam Speaker, that was not necessary. The only thing that is needed is that the government withdraws the bill, revises it slightly and places it on the table of the summer Riksdag for consideration.
Another alternative is that the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, or the Moderates abstain in the vote on Monday. It is not more difficult than that. Then the opposition's proposal will pass. Right now, they are pulling the wool over the eyes of all the municipalities affected by this legislative change. They say that something should be investigated. But we do not need to investigate this. We can change it now.
Madam Speaker! It is quite easy to abstain on Monday at the vote or to withdraw the bill. In that case, the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Moderates would be credible. But we heard before the question period that the Sweden Democrats are not particularly interested in that change. If fortune should be on their side and the Sweden Democrats are let into Rosenbad, they will indeed have a very large mandate to say no to this change. The best one can do if one wants to achieve any credibility in this issue is actually to withdraw the bill or abstain at the vote on Monday.
The proposition contains several different parts. We Social Democrats think it is reasonable that one should be able to extract uranium from secondary mine waste or during ongoing mining in existing mines. In that case, it is clear that minerals and metals such as uranium need to be handled. This can take place at an existing enrichment plant, after the permit has been amended. But this affects the municipality in question because the proposal also means that they shall take over the rescue service assignment. The municipalities are required to ensure that the rescue service has the right competence, knowledge, and ability – but no money is added.
Both the removal of the municipal veto and the fact that the rescue services shall take over an activity without compensation have been extensively criticized by SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, and especially by municipalities with alumschist in their bedrock. Can the affected members perhaps answer in their speeches as to why the municipalities should take over tasks without cost coverage from the state? Why are the municipalities not given the opportunity for influence and veto in a matter that is very important to them? Very many people out there want answers to that.
Why is it that the affected municipalities are not listened to in such an important issue for them? Why are the municipalities not compensated for the cost increases they will be forced to take over if they are to be responsible for the enrichment of uranium at a new enrichment plant or an existing enrichment plant with a new permit? It is actually not so difficult, I think, for the affected to answer.
Why does one proceed with a proposition when simultaneously stating that one intends to reintroduce the municipal veto, perhaps retroactively? How is it possible for the parties involved if they are simultaneously to let the Sverigedemokraterna into the Government Offices?
We have a number of grounds for reservation, which are sometimes a bit difficult to take a position on, but we have nevertheless landed on moving for approval of ground for reservation 9 and also of the joint reservation 10, which concerns mining in alunschist.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Isak From, for the speech! We had an exchange of remarks after my main speech and have, in fact, already discussed most of it. But Member From persists on the so-called cost transfer to the municipalities for rescue services. Now, the fact is that there is no uranium mining in Sweden. There hasn't been for a very long time. It was even prohibited, through the Social Democrats' initiative and in cooperation with the coalition parties one parliamentary term ago. Therefore, no cost transfer occurs because there is no activity at all.
Given that we will now treat the mining and prospecting of uranium like any other mineral, my question is whether there is any other metal or any other mineral where the member From believes the state should step in and subsidize the rescue services in the municipality where the mining takes place. Because that is not the case otherwise. The rescue services are normally financed – as far as I know as a municipal politician – by the mining industry providing jobs and thereby financing the municipal welfare. If the Social Democrat Isak From is of a different opinion, I would like to hear him express it.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! The proposition on appropriate security and protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials nevertheless points out that the rescue services need a certain competence to handle these nuclear materials. Now a new question is landing on the municipality from the state, which obliges them to take over or perform a mission. The practice then is that funds are also provided.
It is correct as Member Eric Palmqvist says that there is no such activity today. But the Member does have the ambition that this type of activity should exist in one or more locations, which will affect those municipalities and those municipalities' rescue services. Is it then not reasonable that it is accompanied by cost coverage for the potentially arising costs?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member From!
In the report, it states that these competencies are also needed elsewhere, because it is not only uranium that has underlying ionizing radiation, radon and the like. That competence exists in many other places where we have mining activities. It is nothing unique to uranium in itself, and it is actually the core of the entire report: We treat uranium like any other metal or any other mineral.
Is it Member Froms and the Social Democrats' opinion that the state should step in and strengthen the competence regarding uranium or something else that requires competence during an industrial initiative in a municipality? Or is it as is customary, that is to say that when an industrial initiative is made in a municipality, the municipality procures the relevant competence for the rescue services? Is this being requested specifically for uranium and nothing else?
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! For the Social Democrats, it is important to listen to the local population and the affected municipalities. There is a great concern about how this can affect the own municipality's opportunities.
If such a facility is being built, I think it is important to ensure that the requirements are met and that there is no doubt whatsoever that the rescue services have the right competence. This will, in that case, involve training efforts which naturally cost money. It is reasonable that the municipalities are offered cost coverage for that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.