Core subject control and assessments of compliance with safety and radiation protection requirements in activities involving radiation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the Committee on Defence's report on nuclear material control and safety requirements in activities involving radiation. M requested approval of the proposals in the report 1. V joined the proposals but believes that the government is trying to portray new nuclear power as inevitable 2. V emphasizes that the focus should be on cheap and fast power sources, and that nuclear power operators must bear their own costs for safety and waste 2. MP considers that the proposals are not particularly controversial but highlights safety risks with nuclear power, especially in war 3. MP argues that nuclear power should bear its own costs and that the government should conduct risk assessments from a total defense perspective 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gustaf Göthberg (M)
Madam Speaker! The House is debating today the Committee on Defence's report 19, Core Issue Control and assessments of compliance with safety and radiation protection requirements in activities involving radiation. By more competent assessors, the committee's proposal is considered brilliant.
After this concise contribution, I would like to vote in favor of the proposals in the committee report and wish the Speaker and the Riksdag a wonderful and happy summer.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! Tonight, we will move quickly. The Committee on Defence's report 19 concerns legislative changes. It concerns nuclear material control and assessments of compliance with safety and radiation protection requirements in activities involving radiation.
The proposals for decisions on legislative changes concern nuclear technology activities, the Radiation Protection Act, as well as that permits for nuclear technology activities shall be able to be revoked if the permit holder does not follow the requirements to perform conformity assessments and the deviation is of significant importance. Vänsterpartiet has also joined those proposals. But one must remember why this debate is taking place in the first place.
The Government decided in November 2023 on a committee directive regarding a review of current rules for the purpose of facilitating new nuclear power. Therefore, Madam Speaker, these legislative proposals also came up for a decision in the Riksdag. I have said this many times at this point in debates in this chamber: The Government is truly trying to do everything in its power to make new nuclear power appear as something inevitable and as something that must be decided – preferably yesterday.
Well, Madam Speaker, if someone wants to believe in Santa Claus, that is up to each individual. If someone wants to believe in the narrative that nuclear power is inevitable, they may well believe that too. I can go as far as to say that if we first look at how much we can extend the lifespan of the existing reactors and see how the technology regarding storage, renewables, and so on develops, we can then look at potential new nuclear power. That would at least be serious in some way.
The government wants to give an impression that the Swedish people want to build new nuclear power and that the support is great. But the answer came from Karlshamn yesterday. It is a small indication, I would like to assert, Madam Speaker.
The word technology neutrality is often heard. It should be technology neutral. But when it comes to waste management, one only wants to facilitate for the individual technology, nuclear power. Therefore, Madam Speaker, we have joined a reservation that points out just this.
When it comes to the expansion of the Swedish energy supply, Vänsterpartiet wants to emphasize that the focus should be on expanding those types of power that are cheapest and can be established most quickly. It is, however, clear that nuclear power, which does not belong to those types of power, will be a part of the future energy system for a while. How long, however, remains unwritten in the stars for the time being.
Against this background, we want to emphasize that a long-term potential expansion of nuclear power obviously presupposes that it can fully bear its own costs, just like other energy sources. The actor who wants to build nuclear power on market terms shall be free to do so, but it must always bear the costs for safety, waste management, and accident insurance. This requires, in our opinion, significantly increased allocations by the nuclear power actors for those purposes.
Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report and wish the Speaker's chair and my colleagues in the other committees – now the Defense Committee – a nice summer. This is probably my last debate for the parliamentary term.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Madam Speaker, colleagues in the Riksdag who are here and any listeners who are also awake at this late hour or see this afterwards! We are debating the Committee on Defence's report 19 on nuclear material control and assessments of compliance with safety and radiation protection requirements in activities involving radiation.
The proposals mean, among other things, that the current obligation to perform assessments of conformity with safety and radiation protection requirements in nuclear activities or other activities with ionizing or non-ionizing radiation is regulated in law. The proposals also mean relaxations for activities that handle small amounts of nuclear material when it comes to meeting the requirements in a new EU regulation on nuclear material control.
This is one of the series of investigations and proposals that the government has made within the nuclear power area during this mandate period, but these specific proposals are not particularly controversial.
Madam Speaker! However, the report deals with a couple of motions from the general motion period that are well worth highlighting. They concern the major security risks that nuclear power plants entail and that those who want to build nuclear power should bear their own costs, also for safety, waste management, and accident insurance.
Madam Speaker! The war in Ukraine and the attacks against the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant have in many ways clearly shown the great security risks that nuclear power entails. Nuclear power plants become targets in war, and the question is whether we are prepared to bear that risk. Shall we allocate air defense to protect nuclear power plants instead of population centers?
In addition to the risks concerning radiation safety, I also want to emphasize that the costs of building nuclear power plants are very high and that the availability of uranium is crucial for operating them.
In this context, unfortunately, Russia and China have decisive roles when it comes to both financing the construction and providing fuel for the operation itself. I can state that most new reactors being built are, in one way or another, dependent on the Chinese or the Russian state.
Furthermore, I want to point out that it is nothing new that these anti-democratic states have an expansive geopolitical and economic agenda and that nuclear power has therefore taken a key role in their power strategy. This is something that the government should take more seriously in its eagerness to build new nuclear power.
Madam Speaker! In light of the fact that new nuclear power now appears to be becoming a reality in Sweden, I also believe that the government should conduct further risk assessments of nuclear power from a total defense perspective, especially with regard to the experiences from the war in Ukraine. The ongoing investigation into the conditions for operating nuclear power during high alert should, of course, have been completed before proceeding with other proposals aimed at building new nuclear power in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! When it comes to the expansion of the Swedish energy supply, we also want to emphasize that the focus should be on expanding the types of power that are cheapest, can be established most quickly, and are also the most sustainable. It is clear that nuclear power does not belong to these types of power, but as previous speakers mentioned, it will still be there with us.
Against this background, I want to emphasize that nuclear power, like other energy sources, should fully bear its own costs. It is not reasonable that the public should be burdened with the costs associated with building nuclear power. The actor who wants to build nuclear power on market terms shall itself bear the costs for safety, waste management, and accident insurance. This requires increased allocations from the nuclear power actors for these purposes. This is the only reasonable way if new establishments of nuclear power are to be permitted.
Madam Speaker! There are many good reasons not to build new nuclear power. There are economic arguments, safety arguments, and environmental arguments that speak against building new nuclear power and in favor of instead investing in renewable energy sources.
With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to move for approval of both reservation 1 and reservation 2, as my colleague from Centerpartiet, Mikael Larsson, could not be here to move for approval of his part of our joint reservations.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
The time has reached 22.55, and according to the agreement on the chamber's work, a meeting in the chamber should not continue past 23.00. I therefore propose that the treatment of the remaining item on the agenda be postponed until the next meeting. Agreed? The answer is yes. The remaining report from the Committee on Defence is moved to the end of tomorrow's agenda.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.