(cont. from § 9) Appropriate safety and radiation protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials (cont. NU27)

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall have a knowledge-based economy – a society where we can afford one another – and be a modern industrial country. Then we need to secure access to the metals and minerals needed for electrification, defense capability, and self-sufficiency. In that work, we simultaneously need to maintain high requirements for safety, radiation protection, and the environment.

It is a difficult balancing act, but it is undoubtedly the task of politics to perform it. When we do so, we should look further ahead than to the next mandate period, and we should do so with judgment, nuance, and balance. Even though politics is both art and science, both feeling and fact, it is up to us not to use fear as a weapon, but we shall stick to what is true.

Mr. Speaker! Electrification requires more metals. Batteries, power grids, solar cells, and nuclear power require raw materials. It is the access to them that determines whether factories end up in Europe or in China. Sweden has for a long time been a strong mining nation. It has built prosperity, created export revenues, and refined the technical expertise here at home.

If we are to return to the top, we need to acknowledge that we need to utilize the natural resources we have. That is not quite where we are today. Legal issues and restrictions have led to a halt in investments in prospecting and research. Sweden has fallen behind while the dependence on imports has increased. We are currently in a situation where Europe imports up to 98 percent of its critical metals.

Mr. Speaker! For my party, the Moderates, issues of self-sufficiency, resilience, and technological independence are part of the analysis that underlies our pro-mining stance. Here in Europe, approximately one-quarter of the world's raw materials are consumed today, but only around 3 percent are produced here. It is not long-term sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! Not everything should be allowed everywhere. We are not going to have large-scale mining of uranium at every forest edge and in every backyard, but it is reasonable that the government has removed the ban on uranium extraction that was introduced in 2018. The ban was not an environmentally motivated measure but a political statement. It practically hindered the extraction of other metals, such as vanadium, cobalt, and other rare earth metals, as they often occur together with uranium deposits.

Now, instead, examinations of mining projects where uranium levels are present are permitted. This does not mean that such activities are approved automatically. No, they must, just like others, undergo examination according to the Environmental Code and the Mining Act, which contain some of the world's strictest environmental requirements.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are now debating aims to make the legislation intelligible, risk-based, and purposeful.

Today, facilities for the extraction of nuclear materials are treated as nuclear facilities. What we are now proposing is that the extraction and processing for concentration itself shall instead be nuclear activity and not be classified as a nuclear facility. This means that the safety and radiation protection requirements are better adapted to the actual activity and its risks.

Rules and laws should be strict where risks demand it, but they must also be accurate. A mine where substances are extracted from the bedrock is not the same thing as a nuclear reactor. It is not the same type of activity and does not have the same risk profile and should therefore not be treated in the same way in every part of the regulatory framework. It is simply a difference between digging up atoms with an excavator and splitting atoms by shooting neutrons at them. Therefore, treating uranium specifically lacks a factual basis.

Mr. Speaker! A related issue is the one concerning alunschist. Neither today nor previously has there been a general ban or a municipal veto against mining in alunschist. The previous, red-green government did investigate the issue but concluded that a ban was not necessary. The justification for that was that Sweden already has a strict environmental permit review. Instead of a ban, a specific suitability requirement was introduced for just mining in alunschist, and it stands in the Minerals Act. It continues to apply, and that requirement includes that one needs to have higher environmental technical competence and greater economic muscles than in mining in other rock types.

Mr. Speaker! Given the great concern, not least regarding Storsjön in Jämtland, there are reasons to revisit the issue of alum shale. The Government has therefore announced that it will investigate the issue of a municipal veto against mining in alum shale again, as a complement, not a replacement, to the special suitability requirements. The investigation directives are fully negotiated and investigators are available, and during next week they will be presented in the usual manner.

Mr. Speaker! It is worth mentioning that there is no mining of critical metals and minerals in alunschist in Sweden today. This has also not occurred to a large extent historically. When it comes to uranium, there has been uranium mining, for example in Ranstadsgruvan in the 60s, a mine that was approved by Tage Erlander's government. This took place under different environmental requirements, permit processes, and extraction methods than what we have today.

Today, 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 viable so that Sweden can avoid unserious actors. Finally, a financial guarantee must be posted in the event that environmentally hazardous waste must be handled – hoops and hurdles, in other words. It is justified when mining deposits that can contain mercury, cadmium, arsenic, zinc, copper, and a little uranium.

Mr. Speaker! It is reasonable that we take care of what we dig up, and it is reasonable that we treat the 91 elements that occur naturally in Sweden relatively equally. It is not desirable that we single out the element uranium as making everything else impossible. If one were to find a few hundred kilos of uranium in the Kiruna mine, it would be unreasonable to close the mine. The reasonable thing is to handle it in a safe manner and in accordance with the intentions found in the Environmental Code. Here it may be worth mentioning that it is difficult to distinguish between primary and secondary extraction because they often go together.

Mr. Speaker! If we were to live a life with zero risk and zero tolerance for harmful substances, the world would look very different. There are levels of arsenic in the rice we buy in the grocery store, cadmium in many solar panels, lead in many batteries, and formaldehyde in wood panels, and so on. We cannot ban all of this; it is not desirable. But we can ensure that it is used in a safe way, consumed in a way that does not involve dangerous exposure, and is handled in connection with recycling. That is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a leading mining nation even in the future – but without ideological deadlocks. A responsible raw materials policy requires that we strengthen Sweden's self-sufficiency of critical minerals and metals while simultaneously protecting the environment and listening to local communities.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg and Oliver Rosengren (both M) as well as Josef Fransson (SD) concurred.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jesper Skalberg for the presentation.

This matter concerns the removal of the municipal veto for uranium mining, which has caused great concern in many parts of the country. Jesper Skalberg points out that there are dangerous substances in all sorts of things and that this is not more dangerous than anything else. But it has been shown that, not least mining in alunschist even with modern environmental permits and modern technology, has resulted in major environmental disasters. There is, therefore, no safe way to do this.

Since the ban on uranium mining has been removed, it is important that the municipalities are given a chance to have their say when it comes to environmentally harmful mining that could affect them very much.

Today, a press release was issued by the government regarding a proposal to investigate how measures can be introduced retroactively. I therefore wonder why there is such a hurry to remove the veto. Should one not instead wait to remove it until this investigation is complete? Jesper Skalberg speaks about simplified and clear legislation, and I believe it would be much simpler to maintain today's legislation until a possible new veto can be in place.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Luhr for raising this issue.

I begin by saying that the government shares Member Luhr's view on mining in alunschist. Earlier this year, the government also communicated that there are no safe ways to mine in alunschist. Now, there is no active mining in alunschist, and nothing indicates that such will arise in the near future.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the investigation we have talked about both today and previously, I share Katarina Luhrs' view that it would be desirable if it were already presented. The investigation directive and the investigators are ready, and what we are waiting for is the scheduling for an external presentation. I look forward to this, and I think it is reasonable that the question of retroactivity is included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker! I do, however, think there are grounds to decide on Monday to separate what constitutes a nuclear facility and what constitutes nuclear activity. As has been said, there is a difference between digging in the ground and splitting atoms. This should have been taken into account by the legislation a long time ago, so it is good that we make this change here and now.

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg and Oliver Rosengren (both M) agreed.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I still experience a certain uncertainty in everything that is presented. What we saw in today's press release from the government was perhaps more of a napkin sketch, and one wonders how it could have taken four months to produce since the previous presentation that an investigation would be appointed. That alone is a question to discuss.

Jesper Skalberg's party colleague Kjell Jansson has in previous debates said that the extraction of minerals must be paramount above all else. Does Jesper Skalberg agree with that? Will M stand by the introduction of a new municipal veto after the election even if the mining sector thinks it is a bad idea, or is the overriding goal always to be able to continue extracting minerals at all costs?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Luhr for a tricky question.

I would say that the overriding goal is to make Sweden the world's best country to live in. For that, two things are needed: increased safety and more people working so that Sweden becomes a little richer. Those are the two big issues that make me get up in the morning and devote a lot of time and work to this house.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the question of whether the extraction of minerals is paramount over everything else, I would say it is a truth with qualifications. It is clear that we shall be a leading mining nation and take advantage of the natural resources we have. Not least, there is a moral responsibility for all parts of the country to contribute what they can.

On Gotland, for example, we contribute limestone and cement, which are used when all of you others are going to build bathhouses, train stations, and other things in Sweden. In Halland, a lot of food is exported. In Gothenburg, there is the large port that supplies us others with goods from the rest of the world. In Kiruna, iron ore is mined – and so on. Everyone needs to contribute their part so that Sweden AB can do as well as possible and feel as good as possible.

Mr. Speaker! The question of local vetoes, I believe we will have to continue to live with, as it is probably not finished being debated. One can also wonder what the next municipal veto will be. Shall Region Skåne decide who is allowed to cross the bridge? Shall Region Gotland decide which weapons systems are deployed at Tofta shooting range? What new municipal vetoes can one imagine? Can one also imagine very local vetoes – that my neighbors decide when I am allowed to fell my forest or fertilize my field?

It is possible to wonder how far the planet slopes, but here and now I believe it is good if we make the change in the legislation that involves distinguishing between installation and activity.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg and Oliver Rosengren (both M) agreed.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have spoken earlier about small towns that have received attention to varying degrees, and we can continue with that. What is the Moderates' view on that residents in Vilhelmina, Ragunda, or Brismene in Falköping should be allowed to make their voices heard?

The Moderates stand behind this, and now Jesper Skalberg Karlsson has also presented that the investigation might even be finished, that there is already an investigator and that it just needs to be packaged in some way. This is not quite apparent in the press release sent out by the government.

Since it has been clarified from the Sweden Democrats here that they are not interested in carrying out such a change. The question then becomes: When will the Moderates carry out the change and reintroduce a municipal veto against slate quarrying, especially against the background that one has already promised the Sweden Democrats to be part of the Government Offices?

My questions are: When should this be presented? When will the Riksdag take a position on a new municipal veto against alunschist mining? How do the Moderaterna view the small towns' opportunity to speak on that issue?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not I personally who am saying that the investigation directives are ready and that an investigator is available, but that was said by the Minister for Energy and Industry here in the speaker's chair during the party leader debate yesterday. What remains to be presented are the directives and the investigator, and that shall take place during next week.

Mr. Speaker! The matter we are debating here today is about uranium being treated like the other 90 naturally occurring elements in Sweden. We want to distinguish between nuclear facilities and nuclear activities.

I think it is reasonable that a municipality is allowed to have a say before a nuclear power plant is built there. It is reasonable that there is a veto against it. When it comes to opening an open-pit mine or a mine, it is not the same type of veto, for example, if one is to extract iron ore, limestone, copper, zinc, or whatever it may be.

Mr. Speaker! It is also worth noting that the first step we removed a few months ago concerned findings of up to 100 kilos of uranium. These are quantities that one reaches very early when mining several tons of a finding that contains something else.

As has also been mentioned in the debate, the content is approximately 300 grams per ton, but if one breaks a few thousand tons per day, one quite quickly reaches over 100 kilos of uranium. Therefore, it is reasonable that we treat it in the same way as we treat other minerals and metals. We shall not make a distinction and call every open-pit mine a nuclear power plant, because it is not.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! What the Riksdag has to take a position on is that it is made so that some existing enrichment plants can apply for a new permit and become a nuclear technology activity. It could involve existing operations, such as in Boliden or in Garpenberg. There, it can be done. One can also imagine that it is possible to import uranium and enrich it there. It is fully possible with the new legislation.

In other places where one does not have that habit or experience, a great anxiety is now spreading. Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's own party colleagues have signaled such anxiety. What does Jesper Skalberg Karlsson say to his party colleagues in Falköping, Jämtland, and Vilhelmina? Will they have a real influence? Will the municipalities have a veto and if so, when? When will the Riksdag be able to take a position on such a matter, if the Moderaterna get to decide?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, there are people who spread alarm, and in many cases it is Isak From's party comrades.

What we are debating here today is whether a site where nuclear materials are extracted should be a nuclear technical facility or activity. It is not that one can go about enriching uranium on a patch of grass in Falköping, but it is about digging up atoms, not splitting atoms. They are two different things.

Mr. Speaker! It is also worth noting that the Social Democrats are trying to sit on both chairs at the same time. They are, of course, against primary mining of uranium, but they are for secondary mining of uranium. That is tricky. It is very difficult to distinguish between the two things. It is, of course, possible to write in an application that one is looking for mineral A but in reality will extract mineral B, in this case uranium, but in such small quantities that it is not the primary.

It might have been more honest to do as the Green Party and just say no to everything, but then the Social Democrats would not have been able to sit on two chairs at the same time. That is exactly what they want to do now as we enter the election campaign. They are for new mines, and they are against new mines. It is tricky to keep track of what the result is actually going to be. We will have to see what happens in the future.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! To quote Jesper Skalberg Karlsson: We shall not use fear as a weapon, but we shall stick to the facts.

The member of Parliament accused the Social Democrats of spreading alarm. At the same time, the member of Parliament stood in the rostrum and said that if uranium is discovered in an iron ore mine, the mine risks having to close. The thing is, that is not how the ban on uranium mining looked. I quote: "The ban does not cover mining activities intended for iron ore, base metals, rare earth metals or other minerals where the mineral is mined, test-mined, processed or physically or chemically enriched for purposes other than to use the fissile properties of the uranium."

To say that an iron ore mine would have to close if uranium were discovered there, if there had been a uranium mining ban – is that not using fear as a weapon? Is that sticking to the facts? It simply isn't true.

The chairman also said that there is nothing to indicate that mining in alunschist would occur in the near future. Why is it then full of companies that want to prospect for it? We have companies in Jämtland that have secured 80,000 hectares. The Moderaterna and others want that the local population should not be allowed to decide. They want to strip them of that right. They want to move the right to decide on this to Stockholm.

Then it is said that an investigation shall be appointed, but the investigation does not exist. The directives do not exist. The investigator does not exist. Nothing other than a press release has been presented.

Can Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and the Moderaterna promise Jämtes, Västgötar, Östgötar, Ölänningar and all others that there will be no gap in this legislation and that it will not be possible to submit an application from the time we now decide – or you now decide – that the veto shall be abolished until a new slate veto is in place? Can that be guaranteed from the Moderaterna's side?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Nordin for the questions!

The time from exploration and prospecting to an open mine is many years – between five and ten in the normal case.

Given that retroactivity is also to be part of the slate veto to be investigated, the question is whether it matters so much whether it is in place on January 1, 2027, or July 1, 2027, since the retroactivity is valid. That is the answer to the question.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The question remains as to how the Moderates will guarantee that this veto will be put in place. The Sweden Democrats have stated clearly here in the rostrum that they do not want a veto for alum shale, and as far as I know, Ulf Kristersson has already promised ministerial posts to the Sweden Democrats.

How is Jesper Skalberg Karlsson supposed to get this veto in place when his government consists of Sverigedemokrater who oppose this? How can he guarantee everyone out there who is now worried that this veto will be included in the legislative process so that it is in place before there is any application for a mining permit? It is impossible for Jesper Skalberg Karlsson to promise that, simply because he does not have his government base with him on this issue.

The only way to handle this would reasonably have been to not make a decision to abolish the local veto for uranium mining. If one really wants it, one can at least vote for the reservations that exist, which do say that we should introduce a veto against mining in alumschist.

If the Moderates now stand for that policy, one should reasonably vote for it in the Riksdag. That also becomes a clear announcement regardless of which government we have after the election, regardless of who sits in it and regardless of what those parties think.

My question remains: How can Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and the Moderaterna guarantee that this veto will be introduced after the election when they do not have a government base that stands behind it?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are in agreement in the three-party district that this shall be investigated. The directives are fully negotiated. An investigator is in place. Soon we will also have a press conference where it will be presented.

Every year, thousands of decisions are made in the Government Offices and also in this Riksdag. A small part of them are those that are included in the Tidö agreement and the agreement that we have reached. I am convinced that many parties will end up behind this new proposal when it is fully investigated and when it has been laid on the Riksdag's table because it is sensible politics.

Overall, one could say that it is good proposals that survive and bad proposals that are scrapped. Therefore, it is, for example, reasonable that the bad proposals to shut down Swedish nuclear power are now reversed, as it needs to be built up again.

There are other proposals that are significantly better, decided by different governments, which no one revisits. When it comes to the alum shale veto, it is an issue that we want to revisit precisely because there is great concern. But it is worth noting that the previous government, which looked at the issue, did not conclude that any ban was needed. Now we are looking at it, and I am convinced that we can do so with common sense, nuance, and balance.

The question is whether the Center Party wants to be part of such a discussion. Nothing indicates that, as they have tied themselves to the mast and Magdalena Andersson. Let's see what the voters think in the autumn! Then I am convinced that we can have these debates again – perhaps on opposite sides, perhaps on exactly the same sides as today.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Considering NU27 has a long name, but I have dubbed it the Government's wet dream of new nuclear power. Everything is about new nuclear power. I assert that firmly.

It is about the government wanting to change the Act on Nuclear Activities, the Act on Nuclear Waste, and the Act on Liability and Compensation in the Event of Radiological Accidents. The proposal implies that the extraction and processing of nuclear materials at an overall level will be treated in the same way as other metals and minerals within the framework of the collective permit process. Simplified, this means that uranium will be looked at in a completely different way than today. I will return to the alunite shale uranium.

All changes and proposals that can in some way be traced back to nuclear power, which many propositions have been about, always end up in that one tries to facilitate and give an impression that it is good to invest in new nuclear power in Sweden.

To exemplify this, we could play with the idea that the government wants to give an impression that a new car model to be started production in Sweden is great. It can be driven on all kinds of liquid fuels. The image that emerges is that electric cars are not the future, but rather it is exactly this car model with an internal combustion engine that Sweden wants to build. Then one starts to loosen the rules for just this model. Support will be given to those who drive this fantastic car, which one considers to be the future. One removes the road tax and gives a bonus to those who buy just such a car. But the investors still shine with their absence. Then one comes up with a brilliant idea: "We let people burn homemade spirits, as long as they pour the alcohol into the tank!" One concludes that it would surely make things easier. But no, the investors still shine with their absence.

I know that I am repeating myself now, Mr. Speaker, but it is too much of this kind that ultimately always ends up in the issue of nuclear power.

Now, at a time when we should be providing our industry and competitiveness with long-term perspective and predictability, this government chooses to leave the industries that truly want to do the right thing in limbo. They do not know which path Sweden intends to take. A party in the coalition even questions whether LKAB should introduce new technology and produce iron sponge or if the blast furnace in Luleå should still be walled off. This uncertainty does not give Sweden better competitiveness. What we would need is to gain more trust in politics, not the other way around.

Mr. Speaker! Mining of alumschist is an activity that can have significant consequences for the surrounding area, and it creates great concern. I admire my colleagues who have spoken on these issues. Therefore, it should be obvious that the local population has influence over any mining of alumschist in the surrounding area. I really do not understand why it is being removed now and it is claimed that something else will come.

We therefore consider that a municipal veto should be introduced to decide whether such activity shall be permitted. No complications. But when the bill being discussed in this committee report was submitted to the Riksdag, representatives from the government indicated that an investigation would be appointed. We have heard about that today. It has, so to speak, been freshened up a bit and is now to look at the municipalities' veto and influence regarding the mining of alum shale.

We can observe that the government has so far not presented any concrete measures. We have heard in exchanges of remarks that it is underway. That is good. But since we do not trust this government and what it is doing, we also want to push here for a ban on all mining of alumschist.

All this just fuels the contempt for politicians; you should know that.

Uran mining involves costly risks for the environment and human health. During mining in both shale and hard rock, radioactive substances – we have heard from those who know better exactly which substances are released – and heavy metals are released, which can leak into soil, water, and ecosystems and cause long-term damage.

Today, secure and proven technologies are missing that can guarantee that these risks can be managed in a satisfactory way. Sweden also has uranium deposits with very low content. Rickard Nordin explained the differences between the example of Canada and our low contents in a good way. This means that mining is associated with extensive interventions in the natural environment without providing any significant energy benefit.

The negative consequences for local communities, biodiversity, water resources and land use weigh, in our opinion, significantly heavier than the alleged benefits. It all ends up with that one wants to give an impression that we even have fuel for our reactors.

Against this background, we believe that Sweden should reintroduce a national and clear ban on uranium mining. It does not provide the effects that one might think, that is, that we can power our reactors with our own uranium. It is bullshit.

Mr. Speaker! When we look at the consequences of this and several other bills, or how this government acts, a clear picture emerges that the countryside, according to the government, shall be a colony: "You are not allowed to have power in any way over your future." They point with the whole hand and expect the population in the countryside to remain silent. But do you know, people out there have had enough. You will receive notice of that on September 13. I can promise you that.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I choose to move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is facing several parallel challenges right now, the largest of which are to carry out the climate transition and build a stronger defense. We are electrifying the industrial and transport sectors, and we are doing so at a time when the world has become more uncertain.

To succeed, we first and foremost need energy, which we will talk more about a bit later today. Right now, we are going to talk about the second important component – the raw materials.

In order for us to have power grids to speak of, a telephone in our hands, or a defense industry worthy of the name, we need metals and minerals such as iron ore, copper, graphite, and uranium. Modern society literally rests on the natural resources that exist beneath our feet. We need these resources, and we need to use them in a responsible manner.

Today's bill is important so that we can actually take responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long been a strong mining nation, and that is what we shall remain. Sweden and Europe are working to strengthen their security of supply and reduce dependence on the rest of the world when it comes to critical raw materials.

We should not have to be dependent on imports from countries that often have significantly lower environmental requirements, worse working conditions, and weaker respect for human rights than Sweden. It is significantly better to mine metals and minerals in Sweden than to move environmental problems and ethical dilemmas to other parts of the world.

If we want more batteries, power lines, wind turbines, solar panels and nuclear power plants, we must also be prepared to discuss where the raw materials will come from. One cannot say yes to the green transition but no to the minerals that the transition requires.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are debating today builds upon the decision already made to abolish the Swedish ban on uranium mining. Now the government is taking the next step. The proposal means that a facility for the extraction and concentration of uranium shall no longer be considered a nuclear facility. Instead, the activity shall be treated more similarly to other mining activities, while necessary requirements for radiation protection and safety continue to apply.

Why is this being done then? Well, it is being done to obtain a more purposeful regulatory framework for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials. The risks that exist in uranium extraction are not the same risks that exist at a nuclear power plant or an enrichment facility. The Government notes that it primarily concerns radiation protection issues and environmental issues, not the nuclear safety risks associated with reactor operation. Therefore, it is reasonable that the regulatory framework is designed based on the actual risks of the activity.

This is also completely in line with international practice and how the issue is handled within the EU, by the IAEA, and in several other European countries.

Then we come to this matter of taking responsibility. The government's bill creates better conditions for Sweden to take responsibility for its own supply of strategically important raw materials. These are raw materials that are needed for electrification, industry, and the transition that the entire society counts on.

It also takes responsibility for an ancient Swedish principle: not to throw away anything that can be used.

Uran is not more dangerous to mine than other metals and minerals. Nevertheless, it has been forbidden to utilize the substance when it occurs as a byproduct of other extraction. Letting the uranium go to waste when it has already been extracted is a waste of resources that benefits neither the environment nor the economy.

It is also an ethical responsibility. It is difficult to argue against Swedish extraction while simultaneously accepting that the same raw material is mined somewhere else under significantly worse conditions. If we need the raw material, we must also be prepared to discuss where it should come from. The alternative is often imports from countries such as China and Kazakhstan, where the views on the environment, working conditions, and human rights differ significantly from the Swedish ones.

Mr. Speaker! The bill ensures that the environmental assessments remain, that the Environmental Code still applies, that the radiation protection legislation also applies, and that the permit processes remain. The difference is that the regulatory framework becomes more logical, more proportionate, and more predictable.

The municipalities' planning monopoly remains even if the specific municipal veto is abolished. Nationally important raw material issues must ultimately need to be assessed from the perspective of national interests.

We also need to be careful here not to mix up the debate on uranium with the debate on alum shale. Mining in alum shale is riskier than other mining, while uranium occurs in more rock types than in alum shale. The Government presents today the proposal to introduce a municipal veto for mining in alum shale. I know that is reassuring for many municipalities, not least around the scenic Storsjön.

The directives for the investigation, which have been debated here, can also be read on the government's website. The press release that was issued earlier today is also available there.

Mr. Speaker! This is ultimately about creating a regulatory framework that is adapted to reality. High environmental requirements shall continue to apply. Radiation protection shall continue to be strong. But the regulation shall be designed according to the actual risks.

Sweden needs more tools to secure access to the raw materials required for energy supply, electrification, and industry. This bill is a step in that direction.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! For me, it is a bit unclear what knowledge Camilla Brodin has in human psychology. I do not believe there is anyone in Jämtland who becomes calmer because of a press release. They become calm when they get to decide for themselves.

The Christian Democrats claim to be a rural party. It seems to be primarily about driving fossil fuels and eating meat. When it comes to sharp decisions, it is more about power to Stockholm that matters. Healthcare shall be governed from Rosenbad. And now the rural inhabitants – the Jämtes, the East Goths, the West Goths, the Ölänners – are not to be allowed to decide over their own land. That power shall be moved to Stockholm. The countryside must manage on its own. But one is not even allowed to manage on its own; one shall be ruled over and patted on the head.

The bill is not about uranium mining. It is about the possibility of local influence over one's own land. How is more power to Stockholm an issue that benefits the Swedish countryside?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Nordin, for the question!

The question was whether we even think the countryside is important. There is no doubt that we do, considering that we ensure there is an opportunity to operate in the countryside. Regardless of which car you drive and regardless of what healthcare you are entitled to, we want to ensure that it works in the whole country and not just in Stockholm. We do know, of course, that the care in Stockholm perhaps does not quite work as it should, because the queues there are increasing, but in the rest of the country, one has access to this.

If the member reads the directives, he will see that it is exactly this that we are now introducing. There is complete agreement in the government that information shall be obtained on how comparable countries regulate extraction in alumschist. It shall be analyzed how municipal influence can be strengthened in cases regarding processing concessions concerning concession minerals in alumschist, including how a requirement for approval from the affected municipalities – i.e., a municipal veto – for the granting of such a concession can be designed. It shall also be analyzed how a strengthened municipal influence over cases regarding processing concessions for extraction in alumschist can be given retroactive effect and necessary legislative proposals shall be submitted.

It is exactly this that it is about when it comes to alunschist. We have been up and listened to citizens regarding the concern that still exists, but there is also a trust in our own Environmental Code and environmental legislation. What is it in that which the member wants to change, considering that he does not seem to trust that the Swedish environmental review is rigid enough?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Above all, I do not want to change the legislation. I want municipalities to continue to be able to decide on their own land, which is the right that the Christian Democrats are now taking away. I do not need any changes, but I am very satisfied with how it is today. It is the Christian Democrats who want to move the power from the Jämtelanders, the East Gotlanders, the West Gotlanders, the Ölandic people, and everyone else to Stockholm. It is not smart rural policy.

The Christian Democrats say that people should be able to live and work in the countryside. Tell that to the people in Oviken, Camilla Brodin! Go up there and explain that they should be able to work there despite the fact that there are companies that are buying up 80,000 hectares – an area four times larger than Stockholm Municipality, for example. That corresponds to more than half of Öland. It will be very difficult to work there when the land is being dug up.

The chairman said that I should read in the directives, but there are no directives published.

(CAMILLA BRODIN (KD): Yes.)

A press release was issued today, but no investigation has been commissioned. There is no timetable for this.

If the Christian Democrats really want a municipal veto against mining in alum shales – even though they do not have their entire government base with them, which means there is no guarantee for this – there is a possibility to resolve it: On Monday, one can vote for the proposal that we should have precisely a municipal veto for mining in alum shales. Then one can show where one stands on the issue.

I suspect, however, that the Christian Democrats will vote no and refer to an investigation that they do not even have support for in their own government basis. I can remind the member that a government makes decisions collectively. That means that everyone must agree, and the largest party in Camilla Brodin's government basis does not want this. How can she, therefore, guarantee the members that the investigation she refers to will be carried out, or that a bill will be submitted? They simply do not have support among their own parties.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I repeat what I have already said, namely that there is a directive. I have it here, and you can get it from me after the debate, Rickard Nordin. It is also on the government's website. I say this so that we have it settled. Everyone who is interested can therefore read the directive; it is six pages long.

This is about making it possible to extract the raw materials that Sweden needs for the energy transition. I do not understand how, as a member of the Centre Party, one does not want to support the mining we have in Sweden anyway and for us to have the opportunity to have both solar power, wind power, and so on – instead of importing this from other countries, which have poorer environmental requirements, poorer working conditions, and poorer human rights at their core. It simply does not add up in the entire rhetoric and vision.

I actually think that the responsibility lies with the parties that say no to this. We take a holistic approach and a holistic responsibility. On the other hand, we will investigate this issue quickly, but that concerns the municipal veto for specifically mining in alunschist. In the current situation, there is no method that can handle it in a proper and correct way. It is to take responsibility for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As we have heard, a press release was issued by the government today regarding the appointment of an inquiry. A reassuring message, says Camilla Brodin. I think that a reassuring message for those concerned perhaps would have been that the municipal veto for uranium mining is maintained, or that we already had a directive in place, an inquiry in place, or even a new municipal veto in place after a rapid inquiry.

The government was already out in February and said that a rapid investigation would be appointed. Since then, nothing has happened, and it has been four months. Now Camilla Brodin says that there is a directive, and what I can see is that, in that case, the press release is the directive. If Camilla Brodin has more information about this, we would like to see a timetable. How is this investigation going to proceed? When will it be finished? Will there be a new municipal veto before the election or after the election?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Luhr, for the questions! I think they are justified given that the directive now exists. I can try to show the correct link later, so that the Member can see the six-page directive.

Next week, the timetable and the investigator will be presented. The member represents a party that has sat in the government before and knows that this must be done in the proper order. However, there is no doubt that there is a pre-negotiated directive that will pave the way for exactly the extraction of alum shale.

My question, however, is once again, just as in the previous exchange with Member Nordin: How can one take responsibility for the entire climate transition when one stops – and actually does not want to see any – mining in Sweden, but would rather import from countries that have neither human rights in mind, adequate working environment conditions, nor an adequate environmental assessment? It is what I am more interested in hearing from Miljöpartiet.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin, for the questions, which I believe will take far too long to go through here!

I hope, however, that Camilla Brodin is aware that today we purchase a large part of our uranium from Canada, which has very good conditions and very high levels of uranium to mine. I just want to inform the members of that, in case it was not known.

I still want to ask further about the rapid investigation regarding a new municipal veto. This is, in fact, about letting the municipal residents themselves decide whether they want a mine or not in their municipality, not primarily about what I think on the issue itself. The timeline is quite relevant for when a veto could be in place, and it becomes very clear in this debate that there is no majority for this decision if it were to become a Tidö government after the election. The largest party, Sverigedemokraterna, says no to a municipal veto, and the smallest party probably won't even remain after the election.

This is a problem if one wants to introduce a new municipal veto, and if one has the slightest interest in that the municipalities should be allowed to have a say in deciding over their own land, I think the answer should be that the old municipal veto should be retained.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

I would still like to say that we must distinguish between mining in alumschist and mining of uranium. A ban on all mining of uranium, which is also found in other rocks, would mean that one hinders the development of extracting other raw materials that we might need. We do not import all our metals and minerals from Canada; they come from different parts of the world. We also import finished products that contain minerals and metals; every mobile phone is not Swedish-produced. The total defense also needs different components from different parts of the world.

Here, it is a matter of us, as a country in Europe that nevertheless possesses these raw materials, being involved. We shall ensure that Sweden is an industrial nation – and a worthy industrial nation that can be relied upon.

That one cannot distinguish between this and wants to hinder that development exceeds my understanding. In other debates, it sounds completely different, however.

I do not understand why one does not want to see this as a possible way forward, but instead remains fixated on the fact that no uranium should be extracted. There are, after all, many other components that are released when the uranium is extracted.

We will remove the wet blanket and ensure that people can believe in and have faith in Sweden again.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! I actually think it became even more disorderly now, if I am to be completely honest. Camilla Brodin makes clear in her speech and in these exchanges that what the government might intend to investigate is only mining. Now we are actually dealing with enrichment.

During blasting, it is desired that as little water as possible comes near the blasted material, as it disturbs the blasting process and so on. But during concentration, large amounts of process water need to be used to extract the metals and minerals that are needed. It is also there that any leakages, accidents, and so on can occur.

In the government text in the report, it states very clearly: ”Depending on where the uranium mining activity is established, the staff at the affected municipal rescue services may need some supplementary training regarding rescue operations in environments with ionizing radiation and some measuring equipment may need to be procured.”

It is admittedly two different issues. But it clarifies that the government, if I understand Camilla Brodin correctly, has no intention whatsoever of introducing any municipal veto when it comes to enrichment for a nuclear activity, which can be linked directly to a mine that extracts alumschist. Is that correctly understood, Camilla Brodin?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Isak From!

It is very much about enrichment – absolutely. Perhaps it is I who should watch my tongue. One also becomes excited in this debate.

In the question regarding trusting the Swedish environmental legislation, we must somewhere look at what it is that causes this concern. It is about the municipal veto being removed.

Now we are appointing an inquiry into how a municipal veto can nevertheless be maintained in the mining of alumschist and the enrichment of alumschist. The directives state that contact shall also be established with the affected municipalities. Knowledge and experiences shall be gathered from authorities, organizations, and everything else. This is not being done lightly. But a rapid inquiry shall be conducted. The inquiry will be presented next week, and the directives on six pages are available on the government's website.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is actually the Tidö parties who have rushed this through during the entire mandate period, Camilla Brodin. They have constantly pushed and clarified that a municipal veto and influence are not needed. When they were then pressured, not least by their own party comrades both in Falköping in Västra Götaland as well as in Öland and in Jämtland, they backed down and promised an investigation, which will be presented at some point – it is a bit unclear when – on whether a municipal veto for mining should eventually be reintroduced retroactively.

At the same time, we are debating here that core subjects should be enriched. This will involve new commitments for the municipalities. Is it then not reasonable that the municipalities are given a significant influence and that there is a veto process if they want it in their municipalities? Is it not reasonable?

Is it not the case that Camilla Brodin and the Tidö parties have actually alarmed people and municipalities to such an extent that after this debate people will ask: When, where and how do you intend to enable a municipal influence?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Isak From!

The vision is that Sweden should be able to take the responsibility that needs to be taken in the world and the surrounding world we see anyway. We have the opportunity to extract raw materials that are under our feet in Sweden. It is responsible, if we want to see real development and take that responsibility.

In Sweden, we have good environmental assessments, perhaps the most rigid in the world. We follow human rights. And we have good working environment conditions. One can trust that we can manage it.

We may need to speed things up. We are so far behind if we are to be able to do this. When the member's party was in government, mining was indeed completely hindered. It is therefore necessary to look at how we can welcome and ensure that Sweden becomes a mining nation that can be relied upon again. We are doing that right now, through a number of different decisions that have been made in this chamber, and on Monday we will press the buttons again to take the next step to enable this.

The municipal veto for alum slate will be investigated quickly. The directives are available to read. I assume that there will be a continued debate.

To all those who are still worried about this, I want to say: With the existing Swedish legislation as a foundation and with the upcoming municipal veto specifically for mining in alum shales and enrichment from alum shales, one can trust that this government takes its full responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal on appropriate safety and radiation protection requirements for the extraction and processing of nuclear materials. In practice, it is not about uranium mining. It is about the government wanting to abolish the municipal veto for just uranium mining through a sham maneuver where one moves just that type of mining out of the legislation. If it had been about something else, one could have separated those issues. But that is not what is being done.

Centerpartiet shares the view that Sweden needs secure access to strategic raw materials. We need metals and minerals for industry, for the climate transition, and for Europe's competitiveness.

But we also need something else, that which the government fails to achieve. There must be a respect for the people who live where the activities are to be carried out. That is why we oppose the government's will to abolish the municipal veto and the influence over uranium mining. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

The government has already put forward proposals that open up for uranium mining in Sweden. It has created great uncertainty in many parts of our country. In the regions of Västergötland, Östergötland, Skåne, Öland, Jämtland and in several other places, people are now asking: What will happen to my land? What will happen to our water? What will happen to our future?

It is important to put the question into perspective. Of the world's known uranium reserves, 0.2 percent are in Sweden. Furthermore, the concentrations in the Swedish bedrock are low. In many Swedish deposits, for example in Jämtland, it is about 300 grams per ton. In parts of Canada, the concentrations amount to 200 kilos per ton, more than 600 times more.

In Sweden, it means that large areas must be taken up for the operation to be economically profitable. In Oviken in Jämtland, a single company has claimed 80,000 hectares. That corresponds to more than four times the area of Stockholm Municipality, more than half of Öland or, with another frame of reference – considering the World Cup – 100,000 football fields. When it concerns that order of magnitude, it is reasonable if the people who are affected also get to be involved in the decision-making.

For the Center Party, this is fundamentally about democracy. We do not believe that decisions affecting people's living environment for generations to come should be made behind a desk in Rosenbad in Stockholm. We are convinced that decisions should be made as close to the people as possible.

Other parties say that we need access to these minerals. Yes, but then let the people who are affected be involved in deciding that. If one believes that the only way to get people to accept the mining of minerals is to steamroll them, one has fundamentally failed in their leadership.

If the state considers an activity to be very important, one should be able to win local acceptance through good conditions and good environmental consideration. If the values created remain in the region, it gives a strong sense of confidence. Taking the easy way, as the Tidö parties do, and abolishing the municipalities' influence only risks leading to greater conflicts, less legitimacy, and popular resistance.

The Swedish uranium mining, which is what it is about right now, is also closely linked to the issue of alunschiefer. It is a bedrock that contains uranium and a lot of important metals that we are talking about, but also heavy metals. What has not been mentioned is that alunschiefer contains large amounts of fossil carbon. Mining in alunschiefer involves that 15–20 percent needs to be roasted away in order to access the minerals. This would effectively make this one of Sweden's largest sources of emissions. If one claims that one wants the uranium to run nuclear power plants for the purpose of getting rid of fossil fuels, it does not add up. The emissions will be gigantic during the mining of the uranium.

For people living in the affected areas, it is not about abstract legal paragraphs. It is about the drinking water in the tap. It is about the agricultural land. It is about the possibility of living, residing, and conducting business in the region one grew up in and being able to do so in the future as well. Centerpartiet is not prepared to take these risks as lightly as the government.

There are also obvious flaws in the government's reasoning. When it comes to wind power, the government defends the municipal veto with reference to local self-government. In that case, the municipalities' influence is important, the government thinks. I think that too. But when it comes to uranium mining, it does not play such a big role for the government. What the government misses is that uranium mining provides incredibly much more impact. The uranium mining will leave scars for generations to come on enormous areas, while a wind turbine can be dismantled after 25 years. The government's logic is difficult to understand, and that is probably simply because there is no logic. If local self-determination is important for wind power, it should be at least as important for uranium mining.

The government rather shows that this is only about nuclear power. It is a question of the signal value: Nuclear power is important. Had it been about nuclear fuel, we would also have needed local enrichment. The value chain for uranium does not stop at mining. But we do not have those value chains in Sweden. We therefore do not become more self-sufficient in nuclear fuel because we mine uranium. We have good opportunities for imports from Australia or Canada, countries that we usually gladly cooperate with.

The government has said that the issue of a municipal veto against mining in alunschist should be investigated quickly. This morning, there were no directives in place. Now we hear that there are directives in place. They were obviously published hastily this afternoon, so hastily that the person who goes in and reads the directives and wants to know when the investigation should be finished is met with the message "Click here to enter a date". It therefore seems to be voluntary for any person to click and enter their own date. For my part, I would like to see the investigation finished tomorrow, or perhaps at least on Monday, when we are to make decisions in these matters. If the government really wants to establish a veto against alunschist mining, one can vote for the proposal that is on the Riksdag's table on Monday.

The government makes collective decisions. The Sweden Democrats do not want this veto. How are the Tidö parties to be able to agree on this and guarantee to all Jämtes, Östgötar, Ölänners and others that it will be a veto against slate mining? It is not possible. There is no such guarantee. The only guarantee for that would be to vote for the proposal that is on the Riksdag's table on Monday, because then one sends a notice to the government that it must comply with. That would be a guarantee. But I am quite convinced that the government parties prefer their press releases and directives without dates over actual decisions.

We in the Center Party stand for a policy where environmental responsibility, local democracy and long-term entrepreneurship go hand in hand. Those who want real local influence should vote for the Center Party. We say yes to development, yes to investments, yes to innovations and yes to people's right to influence their future.

One thing that I very rarely say, but which is valid here, is that it would be better for the environment if the activity took place somewhere else. When there are 600 times higher concentrations in Canada, it is actually better if the mining of uranium takes place there than if it takes place in Sweden.

If one is so sure of their cause, one should let the population make the decisions themselves, not override them. That is also why we oppose the government's proposal to weaken the municipal influence over uranium mining. Promises of new vetoes and retroactivity are merely empty promises and expressions of desperation. If one truly wants to change this, one must also vote accordingly in the Riksdag. Press releases protect no drinking water, snappy quotes provide no influence, and a lack of dates definitely provides no guarantees. That is why we need a new government.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the presentation.

That the Center Party and the Sweden Democrats have different starting points regarding uranium and nuclear power has been known to me since Rickard Nordin was small and went to preschool. I myself had my political awakening in connection with the referendum on nuclear power in 1980.

I wonder a bit about the Centre Party's falling into so-called "someone-else-ism." This is supposed to happen somewhere else – not in my backyard. Am I interpreting this correctly – is it the concentration that is decisive for where things should happen? Does Rickard Nordin advocate that we should shut down Aitik in Gällivare and stop mining copper in Sweden because one has around ten times higher concentration of copper in the mines in Congo? Is that the Centre Party's new stance when it comes to mining and mineral policy?

The member mentions that the wind turbines can be dismantled. What is done with the wind turbine blades then? How does C want them to be recycled? Have there been new findings on that front, or is it still the case that they are buried because one does not know how to handle them?

Rickard Nordin speaks about the enormous areas that the prospecting covers and makes it appear as if they are going to be destroyed. I can inform the member that there are larger areas in Sweden that are golf courses than what the combined Swedish mining industry accounts for. To believe that we would have some kind of doubling of mining activity in Sweden because one is prospecting for uranium is a misconception. Both the member and I know that prospecting is conducted over large areas, but that what leads to actual extraction is extremely limited in this context.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! If Eric Palmqvist had his political awakening in 1980, I wasn't even born then, so I can inform him about that. But what is interesting is that the Sverigedemokraterna were, at best, a party at all then and above all consisted of Nazis who gave the Nazi salute. That says quite a lot about Eric Palmqvist's political awakening, if it occurred in 1980.

Eric Palmqvist asks about the recycling of wind turbine blades. Quite a lot of them can be reused in various ways as granules and other materials. Then there are technologies for chemical recycling, where the components are broken down and can be reused in the basic structures.

If one is worried about the recycling and disposal of different things, one should instead consider nuclear power problematic, because its dangerous waste needs to be disposed of for approximately one hundred thousand years.

If one is worried about what remains of energy production, Eric Palmqvist's political awakening in 1980 should have led to one being opposed to nuclear power.

Now, I and the Center Party are not against nuclear power. We are only against the enormous subsidies that the government wants to give to nuclear power. It is something completely different. If someone wants to build nuclear power and pay for it, they are free to do so.

This is not a nuclear power debate. The big question is about local influence. As I interpreted it, Eric Palmqvist does not stand behind having a local influence over alunschist mining. It would have been good to get a clear statement.

Will the Sweden Democrats stand behind a veto on alum shale mining if they are in government after the next election?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Rickard Nordin!

I can state that the Sweden Democrats did not exist in 1980. Lines 1, 2 and 3 were represented by the old parties. I myself was a nuclear power enthusiast even then. I had migrated from Great Britain, the kingdom of coal, where one saw what the smoke did to London, my birthplace.

It was easy to adopt the idea of nuclear power as the clean one. It was Gösta Bohman who stood for it and no one else. As far as I know, there was no healing from his side in any case in 1980 when I began to take an interest in politics.

Rickard Nordin asked about the veto and our view on it. Both in previous exchanges of remarks and in my main submission, we have explained very clearly our position on it.

How the investigation will look, what is proposed, and how some form of municipal influence is envisioned, I cannot speculate on here today, as we have not been involved in preparing the investigation directives that were presented today. Much less can we oversee what the investigation will yield.

Our starting point is that it is not the bedrock itself that is technically limiting. What should be limiting are the environmental consequences that can be reported. That is what is both innovation-driving and logical to do. You steer it based on which consequence you envision.

If technology advances and it can be done in a safe way, one can also break even in alumschist.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Eric Palmqvist, for the clear clarification!

The Sweden Democrats' starting point is that we should not have local influence. Consequently, the other government parties' desire for a local influence will also fall eventually, if cooperation occurs after the election.

It is very important to know for everyone listening to this debate and who are concerned in Öland or in Jämtland, Östergötland, Västergötland, Småland, Skåne and so on.

The Sweden Democrats' message is that they are not to be allowed to decide for themselves. Stockholm shall do it. That is also the Sweden Democrats' starting point in the government formation. It is an important consumer information.

It is also interesting when Eric Palmqvist says that it is the consequences that should decide. The consequences are unpredictable in this case. In that case, I think it is quite reasonable that one has a local influence. That is what I stand for as a member of the Centre Party.

There we clearly make completely different assessments. These are also important messages to the voters in September.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Much wisdom has already been spoken from the rostrum from both the government base and the opposition. This is such a typical issue that signals the political trade-offs that need to be made between different interests.

I hope that all of us members here in the chamber and our parties will commit ourselves to trying to find a balance between sometimes conflicting interests.

I also, of course, want to emphasize the importance of a Swedish industrial policy for more jobs, growth, and prosperity. If we continue to want such a policy in Sweden, and preferably a green one, we need electricity and inputs.

This is quite clearly an issue that leads to great concern locally. Interventions are being made in nature and in the immediate vicinity. It is not strange that people have views and sometimes objections.

I think that especially Miljöpartiet is good at acting as a brake on the rest of us parties and ensuring that we achieve the balance we strive for and that we end up in the right place.

It is unfortunate that information has not been available. What is being discussed here today and what will be presented at a press conference next week is about ensuring that it can be accepted locally, the type of extraction that we are debating.

It is a matter of us not hindering the development that Sweden needs and trying to land on a balance that can be accepted by everyone. Therefore, I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have a very simple question. If we are to try to find land areas that are accepted by everyone, why then remove the local acceptance?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

As I said in my speech, what we are debating here today, and what will be presented next week, is an attempt to find a balance between conflicting interests and between different political trade-offs.

I think it is wise not to get locked into either one or the other, but instead to try to find a way forward that can be accepted as broadly as possible.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! By removing local influence now and having some kind of hope for later local influence, which cannot be guaranteed, one finds a solution that can be accepted by as many as possible. It does not feel particularly credible.

If one really wants to implement a local veto against mining in alumschist, a proposal lies on the Riksdag's table with a possibility for a motion on Monday. Will the Liberals vote for that possibility if one actually wants it?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! We need to have a development in Sweden where we have a green industrial policy. We need to have activity throughout the country, especially in the northern parts. In recent years, we have perceived that it is an interest that many parties share.

We also need to have an understanding that one can have an acceptance for a great deal of development on a general level, but that when it comes to the local level, there is a risk that important industry and important industrial policy will founder because one does not want it just in one's own backyard.

What I have tried to account for here are the trade-offs that have been made. It is a matter of not stopping a completely necessary development for Swedish industrial policy, Swedish business, and Swedish prosperity.

At the same time, one must have a great understanding of local acceptance. We also debated this last week when proposals came from the government regarding compensation to, for example, be able to have wind power in municipalities.

It is a way to try to increase local acceptance so that we do not hinder development which, in any case, I believe is necessary to have a green Swedish industrial policy.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In November last year, the Riksdag voted by a single vote to remove the ban on uranium mining in Sweden. It was a really bad decision.

Since the turn of the year, it is therefore permitted to mine uranium on Swedish soil. Until today, there is still a possibility for municipalities affected by uranium mining to be able to say no to a new uranium mine, but not for much longer.

The current government has decided not only to allow uranium mining but also proposes today that we should remove the municipalities' possibility to say no to such.

Why is it so important to give municipalities the opportunity to be able to say no, specifically when it concerns uranium mining? With mining in alunschist, where much of the Swedish uranium is located, great risks to people's health will arise.

Both during the mining of alunschist and in bedrock, radioactive substances and heavy metals are released which can leak into soil, water, and ecosystems and cause long-term damage. Today, it is not expected that there are any safe and proven techniques that guarantee that these risks can be managed in a good way.

Mr. Speaker! Mining of alunschist involves great risks for nature, ecosystems, and biodiversity. When alunschist is mined, heavy metals and radioactive substances are released. These are substances that can leak into nearby watercourses and lakes and damage nature in other ways and in this manner cause significant damage. At the same time, safe and proven techniques are lacking today.

Calculations show that mining of alunschiefer leads to large carbon dioxide emissions – something that Rickard Nordin has raised several times in the debate. Miljöpartiet considers that the environmental risks that currently result from alunschiefer mining are completely unacceptable.

Furthermore, which has also been raised in the debate, Sweden's uranium deposits have very low concentrations of uranium, which means that uranium mining will always involve major interventions in the natural environment and large open-pit mines with a relatively small amount of uranium in return.

I would like to raise an example, namely Ranstadsverket outside Skövde, which during its period of operation extracted somewhere between 200 and 250 tons of uranium in total. This can be compared with our current Swedish nuclear power plants, which use between 1,500 and 2,000 tons of uranium every year. It is also important to remember that the environmental damage caused by Ranstadsverket has never been possible to restore.

The negative consequences for local communities, biodiversity, water resources, and land use weigh, in the opinion of the Miljöpartiet, significantly heavier than any alleged benefits. Many of the sites that could become relevant for mining are also located near freshwater reserves, lakes, and watercourses. Where alunschist is found, we also often find our most used and fertile agricultural lands.

The Green Party believes that clean water and food production for most people here should trump uranium mining. That being said, I want to emphasize that the Green Party wants Sweden to reintroduce the national ban on all uranium mining and simultaneously introduce a ban on mining in alunschist.

Mr. Speaker! It has long been considered that uranium mining in Sweden is unprofitable. But in view of the geopolitical situation we have with increasing uranium prices, interest in uranium mining from several foreign companies seems to have been awakened. Already on January 1, when the government's new legislation came into force, the first application to mine uranium in Oviken in Jämtland was received. Other companies have also applied for uranium prospecting in Jämtland but also in Norrbotten, Västerbotten, Gävleborg, and Västergötland.

Several of these sites are located adjacent to drinking water sources and valuable natural environments, which of course creates a great deal of stress for the municipal residents. It is one of the main reasons why the municipal veto is worth defending. Those who are primarily affected by a uranium mine must have the right to influence the decision.

The Green Party does not think that uranium mining is worth its price given the environmental damage it causes. The Green Party considers that the land, the water, and our cultivated lands are worth much more than the small amount of uranium that can be extracted on Swedish soil.

It is no secret that the Green Party wants to invest in other types of energy production, but as long as Sweden's existing nuclear power plants remain, there are better conditions for uranium mining in countries with ongoing mining in deposits with clearly higher concentrations and more efficient mining conditions. Here we can highlight Canada as an example, with deposits that can contain several hundred times higher concentrations of uranium than the Swedish deposits. Swedish uranium will therefore come with high costs and a large environmental impact.

Today, however, it is the municipalities' opportunity to say no to uranium mining that we are debating, and today that debate feels extra strange. On the very same day that the government wants to remove the possibility for the municipalities to stop uranium mining, the government is once again making an announcement about appointing a rapid investigation into a new municipal veto. What we have seen are three points that the government wants to investigate. But there is still no designated investigator and still no timetable.

Many may remember that representatives of the government, including the Minister for Climate and the Minister for Energy, were out and promising a rapid investigation into a new municipal veto at the beginning of February this year. Since then, February, March, April, May, and half of June have passed – and no investigation. But today, when we are going to remove the veto, the government repeats the same thing: It shall appoint a rapid investigation.

One might wonder why this has not happened earlier. And why is it happening now, when the question appears on the table again? One could ask why no investigation was commissioned in February, if the government now had as a plan that a quick investigation was to be carried out.

After this debate, however, the answer is quite obvious. A new municipal veto is not something that is agreed upon in the Tidö government, and it is therefore not something that anyone wants or perhaps even can implement before the election. This means that the Tidö parties will most likely also not introduce any new veto after the election.

I therefore really want to emphasize that no one should lean back and believe that this desire to introduce a new veto will soon become a reality, when the government is in such a hurry to remove the current municipal veto. The investigator shall therefore simultaneously look at retroactive measures. To do so instead of postponing the decision to remove the veto is simply foolish!

Let us instead wait with making decisions about this until we see if a new municipal veto becomes a reality, for that is the only reasonable thing.

Miljöpartiet wants to reintroduce the ban on uranium mining and see a new ban for mining in alunschist. We definitely do not want to remove the municipal veto against uranium mining that exists today.

Miljöpartiet wants to rule out the entire matter. To be clear: I therefore move for approval of reservation 8 and naturally stand behind our other reservations in the matter.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a rather simple question. How are we to be able to live a good life in Sweden, in Sweden's rural areas, if the water and the land are poisoned?

The government has opened the door for uranium mining in Sweden again. It was a serious mistake. Now the government wants to remove local self-determination. This activity risks causing great damage to people and the environment. It concerns regions where people have to leave their family farms, where they have lived for generations. They have to watch the region die, and the water may be poisoned. It might become a large, dead open-pit mine.

At the same time, local self-government is now being attacked. People are not even given the opportunity to say no to being exposed to these extreme environmental risks.

Mr. Speaker! This bill should not be adopted but thrown straight into the wastebasket.

In Sweden, the largest deposits of alumschist are found in parts of Skåne, Östergötland, Västergötland, Närke, Öland, Gotland, and Jämtland. These are landscapes with agriculture, natural values, important drinking water sources, and living local communities where people live, live their lives, and safeguard their regions and the region's future.

Not least in Jämtland, people have for years engaged themselves against the plans for precisely uranium mining around Oviken and Storsjön. The municipalities around Storsjön have said no because they are concerned about the drinking water, for nature, for agriculture and for the tourism industry, which they are dependent on.

There are also plans for mining in, among other places, Västergötland, where prospecting for alumschist has long faced opposition precisely because of the risks to the water and agricultural land. In Skåne, people have reacted strongly against plans that threaten both their natural environment and important parts of Sweden's food production.

It is not so strange that people all over Sweden are strongly engaged in this issue, because the experience from many mining projects shows that it is often the local community that has to bear the long-term costs, while the profits end up somewhere else. If the water is contaminated or nature is destroyed, it is not the mining companies' CEOs who have to live with the consequences for generations, but it is the people on site. It is the municipalities, and it is the taxpayers.

The Tidö parties try to give the impression of protecting the countryside, but time and again we see the exact opposite. When people in the countryside protest against these environmentally harmful projects, they are told that they are standing in the way of development. When municipalities say no, the government tries to limit their influence. When local communities worry about water, nature, and health, they are dismissed as a problem. It is the wrong path for Sweden and for Swedish democracy.

Mr. Speaker! Mining of alunschist involves unacceptable environmental risks. When alunschist is mined, heavy metals and radioactive substances are released, which risk leaking into watercourses, lakes, and the surrounding nature and can cause long-lasting damage to ecosystems and residents. Furthermore, it potentially involves very large climate emissions through the chemical processes that are initiated in the rock.

Still, the Tidö government wants to proceed with removing the veto, when on the contrary, all mining of alumschist and uranium mining should be banned as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker! The mining of uranium in hard rock is not a particularly pleasant activity either. Radioactive gases, radioactive dust, and radioactive decay products are released. To access the uranium, one also needs to mine large amounts of waste rock, which is mined and deposited as waste containing uranium and other dangerous substances that can continue to pose risks for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the uranium deposits in Swedish bedrock are small. This entails great environmental risks, while the economic and social benefit is almost non-existent. It is actually incredibly difficult to understand the logic in opening up for these activities with that equation.

Mr. Speaker! We need a new government that takes responsibility for people's health and for the environment.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Lakso for the speech.

Now, I do not want to put words in the member's mouth that the member has not said. So, I do not think that one is debating. I do, however, want to remember that the party representative for Laksos's party earlier today has spoken about how we should not use scaremongering and the like and accused our party of doing so when it comes to wind power.

I still hear quite a lot of scare vocabulary and scare arguments in the member's speech. The member speaks of poisoned water, dead open-pit mines, large areas and the like, as if the mining industry were an enormous problem. I would like to begin by asking which mining projects and watercourses in modern times, that is, those that are examined according to the Swedish Mining Act and the Swedish Environmental Code – we are not talking about old transgressions but about current legislation – the member is referring to in that case.

I will stop there and take further questions in the next reply.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Eric Palmqvist for the question.

The big difference is that in the case of mining activities, there are several examples where things have gone really wrong, where dams have burst and where we have had poisoned water. I am from Västerbotten myself, and there we have several examples of how lakes have been poisoned. Even in Norrbotten, we have examples where mining has caused toxins to leak into the drinking water.

The difference is that this is not what Eric Palmqvist calls propaganda or scaremongering. These are precisely the consequences we have seen. We have seen dam failures in Finland, in Spain, and so on. There is a long line of examples of mining activities that have gone wrong.

Since this is obviously a very difficult balancing act and conflict of interest – we need minerals, and at the same time it is a very environmentally hazardous activity – which Miljöpartiet takes very seriously.

But above all: Since we do not need more new nuclear power, we also do not need any uranium mining. There, our line is both very clear and very consistent. We can argue very well for it with both environmental, climate, and economic reasons, and also based on the time it takes for different power sources to be built for us to meet the climate goals. Miljöpartiet has an incredibly stringent stance on these issues.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for that, Member Lakso!

I note, however, that I did not receive any answer as to which mines and watercourses we are talking about that have indeed been examined according to the Environmental Code in modern times. There are plenty of old precedents, but I would have liked to have clear examples concerning modern times and modern legislation.

That one raises dust disasters in Finland and South America is completely irrelevant for the Swedish conditions. It is about the testing of other supervisory authorities and according to other regulations – completely uninteresting! I want the Swedish examples.

Then I want a clarification from Member Lakso: Do we not trust Swedish licensing and supervisory authorities and Swedish courts? It is they who examine this based on expertise, not opinions. Does Linus Lakso not trust them?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, Spain is in Europe and not in South America.

Just as Eric Palmqvist's colleagues in the Tidö parties have confirmed, there are no secure methods for extracting uranium from alunschist. There, the Sweden Democrats seem to stand quite alone.

To return to this with fear propaganda, I forgot to mention the other side regarding wind power. There, the Sweden Democrats are often involved in local opposition groups that spread propaganda which investigations have shown often originates from Russia and their interest in sabotaging Swedish energy production. I don't quite think that one should be so offensive from the Sweden Democrats regarding spreading disinformation and propaganda.

There is a very big difference in actual consequences when things have gone wrong regarding mining. We cannot take these extremely large risks.

When it comes to what is being debated today, it is primarily, as has been pointed out several times, about local self-determination. Why should people not be allowed to say no if they do not want to be exposed to these great risks? This is not an activity that is actually needed. We need rare earth metals, yes, but there are other possibilities for mining them.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I assume that the question many are now asking themselves is: What is the third consecutive environmentalist here doing? It is about the fact that we place very great importance on these issues and have a very great commitment to them. We are therefore trying to highlight them from slightly different angles.

I am not usually in the Committee on Enterprise but in the Committee on the Constitution, as some of you know. I must admit that I was somewhat astonished by the level of commitment and the tone in various issues here. I noted that it was spoken of AB Sverige and the world's best country to live in, almost in the same breath. For me, these are two completely different things. Sweden should not be run as a company. We are happy to talk about a good country to live in, but that is about completely different things.

As a member of the Committee on the Constitution, I also think of the Instrument of Government Chapter 1, Section 1, where it is stated that Swedish democracy is built on a representative and parliamentary system of government and local self-government. They are thus presented as precisely equal. That must mean something. We must be able to conclude that if these two are A and O, then the local self-government is O in this context – or is it? They are equally important.

I now leave the first part of the speech and move over to my manuscript.

I started writing my speech an eternity ago – on Monday – when the train passed Stenstorp in Västra Götaland. It is located in Falköping Municipality, between Falköping and Skövde along the Västra stambanan. There lies Ranstad – not quite within sight, but nearby – where Sweden's first and so far only uranium mining took place for a few years in the late 1960s. It is thus 60 years ago.

I shall dwell a little on this industrial project for a few reasons, which I nevertheless believe have relevance to what we are discussing now. The alum-shale that was mined in Ranstad did not have any particularly high content of uranium, but enough for it to be considered profitable. We are talking about around 150 grams per ton of alum-shale. From one ton, it was possible to extract uranium equivalent to the weight of two chocolate cookies – we are talking about small chocolate cookies. It is not much.

What remained was, therefore, waste of one and a half million tons of alum-schist, which was spread out over a fairly large area that even today, 60 years later, is classified as an environmental risk area. It is not forbidden to stay there, but it still does not feel completely comfortable.

Let me share a bit of trivia, namely that there was initially a plan for Swedish nuclear weapons. It can probably be said to be overstated now, but at the time it was an alternative that was discussed. It was also part of the argumentation for breaking uranium in Ranstad. It must be seen in the light of the geopolitical situation of that time with a cold war, an iron curtain, and a buildup of nuclear arsenals in several large countries after the Second World War. Since we have discussed awakenings politically speaking, I was well somewhere. I was not particularly old, but it was still something that concerned me.

Uranium is found in many places in Sweden, especially in alunschist. We have established that. The estimates of how much there is have varied greatly. For a while, it was believed that it involved about 15 percent of the total reserves in the world. These have, of course, been revised downwards over time, and the optimistic calculations from the 60s and 70s may have their basis in exaggerated estimates of how much can actually be extracted. A small detail in this context is that it was LKAB that drove Ranstadverket forward in the 70s, among other things based on the big ideas about very large reserves of uranium in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! What happened then with the extraction in Ranstad? After the initial period during the second half of the 60s, the whole thing was put in a sack and put on hold for better times. As for the uranium mining, it occurred in connection with the oil crisis in the early 70s, when uranium prices rose sharply. LKAB entered into it to drive the mining in Ranstad, but one never managed to get any real mining started. In 1984, they gave up, eventually sold the land to a private individual for a krona – that was how it was done then – and demolished some buildings and kept others, which have now become premises for companies.

The open-pit mine itself has been filled with water, and the remains of alunite shale that remain have been covered with a layer of gravel and soil and planted trees. Measurements of radiation and other indicators are still carried out regularly.

Mr. Speaker! I also intended to speak a little about the situation in Jämtland, more specifically in Oviken on the western side of Storsjön. I think it is one of the most beautiful places in the country. There, the Canadian company Aura Energy searched for vanadium, and now also uranium, in alumschist. The interest in uranium arose a bit more clearly when the decision to lift the ban on uranium mining was made in the Riksdag – that decision we have talked about – and began to apply on January 1 of this year. Aura Energy completed its application a few weeks later.

The project is called Häggån and is 100 percent owned by Aura Energy. It is a prospecting company with two large projects. One is Häggån in Jämtland, and the other is a larger deposit in the desert in Mauritania in Africa. Aura Energy intends to commence processing and extraction of the deposit if continued studies show sustained profitability. I will return briefly to the question of the price of uranium just in a moment.

Regarding vanadium, a metal used in both steel production and batteries, there is naturally also a development occurring, and a larger recycling plant is being planned in Finland.

It is also very difficult to extract uranium from spent nuclear fuel. A large part of the energy is not used, but it is still an expensive process that has no commercial prospects – but that can, of course, change.

Mr. Speaker! The world market price for uranium has gone up and down over the last 60 years since Ranstadverket was commissioned. It is now a good bit below the peak levels after the oil crisis in the 70s. The number of nuclear power plants under construction was very high then. Then they fell dramatically back after Chernobyl and recovered just as strongly in the early 2000s, but fell again after Fukushima in 2011. Now it is at a level that is judged to be profitable for extraction, provided that it is a price that is sustainable over time.

Then one must remember regarding nuclear power plants that the price of uranium is a fairly small part of the cost of operating a nuclear power plant. By far the largest part of the cost is capital costs and depreciation on the enormous investments that are made. They can be 60–70 percent of the total cost. The smallest part is the enriched uranium, that is, the fuel.

Mr. Speaker! I shall conclude my speech by addressing something regarding consultation, municipal veto, and what people in the Storsjöbygden area should have the right to expect. Häggån is therefore located in Bergs municipality in Jämtland. There are also four samebys affected by the activities that are ongoing and planned and which could come to develop into large-scale mining, namely Tåssåsen, Mittådalen, Handölsdalen, and Njaarke.

I spoke earlier today with a supervisor for the reindeer husbandry in the Tåssåsen sameby, who argues that prospecting and potential mining activities in the municipality and the sameby could hit the reindeer husbandry hard. It is, of course, about land use, but also about air and water. Particles released during mining can be carried by both wind and water. Knowledge is by all means limited, and more investigation and research work is required. The resources that the samebys do not have at their disposal, the asymmetry in negotiations and consultations, is a real democratic problem.

Mr. Speaker! Why then are we so engaged in the issue of municipal influence or municipal veto in this development? To begin with, on the local level in Jämtland, it is not just a question for Miljöpartiet. Even the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, Moderaterna, and Kristdemokraterna in Bergs kommun have participated in debates with articles and other forms of contributions, precisely in order not to jeopardize the municipal influence. It is not just about land use but also about drinking water, housing, companies, that is, the possibilities for the municipality to develop on its own terms over a very long period ahead. It is the municipality and its inhabitants who have to take both risks and consequences, and it is in the highest degree reasonable that the municipal influence is secured and not loosened.

With that said, there is also the question outside of the debate of what the municipality and the municipality's residents get in return, those who take risks, consequences, and responsibility. What joy do the residents have from a mine in the municipality? What does the reindeer husbandry get for relinquishing lands they traditionally have access to? There are good reasons, not least considering all the new mining projects being discussed and planned, including with support from the EU and its Critical Raw Materials Act, to reflect on how participation even in the economy that the mines are assumed to generate can look in such a way that it benefits both the local population as well as the municipality and, in applicable cases, that is to say almost all, our indigenous people, the Sami.

I move for approval of reservation 5 under point 4.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate in the Swedish Riksdag is therefore about whether it is truly wise to remove the right of decision-making from those who are affected, to remove the municipal veto when it concerns uranium mining, which is important for the people of Jämtland, Norrbotten, Skaraborg, Skåne, Västerbotten, and several others.

From the municipalities and citizens around Storsjön, several invitations have been sent to responsible ministers, Romina Pourmokhtari and Ebba Busch, to visit the affected regions, engage in dialogue with the population, and personally see what consequences the government's decisions in Stockholm actually mean for the residents and local communities.

Mr. Speaker! The citizens around Storsjön have also for a long time done a great and solid work to inform themselves about what mining for uranium entails, especially since the uranium is located in alunschist. They also possess a great knowledge in the matter. But the ministers made no visits and did not look the villagers in the eye before a decision was made. What shall one call it, Mr. Speaker? In Jämtscenska, we would say: It is not grett.

I also read in the local newspaper at home about Agnes Wåger Widell, Rio Keita Edvall and Maja Edin, who are all fourth graders at Tavelbäcksskolan. They wrote to Östersund Municipality about their concern. They wrote, among other things:

Hello, the municipality! We have heard that the government wants to mine uranium here. We know that if the basins start leaking, Storsjön will be poisoned. We will get no clean drinking water, and those who live around Storsjön will find it harder to live here. We want you in Östersund municipality to say no.

Östersund Municipality said no. So do Åre, Krokom, and Berg. Even Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, does it, and definitely also we Social Democrats, because we want to retain the municipal veto.

Mr. Speaker! Today the government issued a press release stating that it intends to appoint an inquiry into a possible veto against mining in alunschist, but here in the chamber the Sweden Democrats said that they do not stand behind that proposal.

We have, as everyone in the chamber knows, a very small government, whose support base together is actually smaller than the Social Democrats'. We have already heard here in the chamber of the Riksdag that there will be no veto for mining in alumschist if Sweden gets a government with SD, M, KD and L after the election. A government, after all, makes collective decisions, and how then is a proposal from that government to reach the Swedish Riksdag?

This is something that everyone out there who shares this concern actually needs to hear – loudly and clearly – before the election. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have indeed seen that what we have heard the Prime Minister say so many times about that "on my side of politics, we are in agreement" has completely crumbled on several issues before all our eyes.

Mr. Speaker! I live in Åre municipality, and it is one of the municipalities affected, as the Häggån deposit also extends there. It is one of the municipalities where the municipal veto is now to be removed. It is a municipality where we who live there do not want to risk our drinking water, our cultivated lands, and our municipal development for generations to come. This is no small matter for us who live in Sweden's rural areas, where the alunite schist is located, and this shall not be decided in an office in Stockholm. This is an issue where the citizens' participation must be protected.

I and the Social Democrats will therefore vote yes to retaining the municipal veto.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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