Mineral policy

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of the motions.

Tonight, as I prepared this speech, it rumbled as usual in Malmbergsgruvan so that it could be felt in our house. Doesn't it make you wonder, a few minutes after midnight, like an old miner, what went wrong with the night's blasts? There, a few kilometers away – but clearly visible from our balcony – lies one of my home municipality's large mines. At a depth of over 1,000 meters, women and men move forward in loaders, dump trucks, and drills and scrap rigs to provide Sweden and Europe with iron ore of the best quality.

In my home municipality Gällivare and my constituency Norrbotten, exceptional values are created for AB Sverige, both in LKAB's iron ore mine and in Boliden's gigantic copper open-pit mine Aitik. Many of the export successes of the industrial country Sweden have their origin in these or some other of the country's mines, whose raw materials we have become masters at refining in value chains that create both jobs and welfare. A couple of examples of this are the products from two of the companies that I visited as recently as last week: Saab Bofors and SSAB.

If I, this morning when I took the flight down to Stockholm, had brought along a few kilos of unprocessed iron ore or iron pellets in my luggage and proudly displayed them, perhaps not so many would have let themselves be impressed, but I know that the more people are impressed by the final products that Swedish industry creates from that which has its origin in our bedrock. Thus, it can be said that the ore is, historically has been, and in the foreseeable future will be one of the very prerequisites for the industrialized Sweden we know. Sweden simply needs a mining-friendly policy.

Mr. Speaker! When I was elected to the Riksdag in 2018, the situation looked different. I am not referring to the changed security policy situation, even though that is also important in context, but to the political ambition in the area. We then had a government that sat on its hands and treated the mining industry neglectfully.

An environmental party with ideological blinkers pushed the Social Democrats ahead of them in a way that resulted in a uranium ban, a lime crisis, and a significantly reduced willingness to prospect. Their policy resulted in Sweden plummeting as a mining nation in international comparisons. Consequently, both Sweden and the EU lost competitiveness and self-sufficiency.

Much of this is something that the Tidö parties have deliberately worked to change. Some of it is already completed, and some will be decided here in the Riksdag later this spring. But the industry has interpreted the signals and the direction, and hopefully, we have only seen the beginning.

When I say that it is only the beginning, I say it based on the knowledge that the majority of the proposals the Sweden Democrats had in the mining and mineral policy area four years ago are now either implemented or something being prepared at the department level. It concerns varying things such as environmental permit processes, mineral strategy, and a repeal of the so-called uranium ban.

In such debates, I usually point out that it is the ability to find and process metals that is the difference between us and the Stone Age human. Our ability to find and process metals has taken us from being able to manufacture simple tools for hunting and fishing to taming the fissile properties of uranium and thus creating the conditions for an abundance of energy, at least unless Miljöpartiet is again given the opportunity to turn energy policy upside down. But that is a completely different debate.

That we, on the other hand, have opened up for both prospecting for and extracting uranium again is both logical and welcome, and naturally, it shall only occur after rigorous environmental permit testing, which, moreover, applies to all extraction of metals and minerals, dangerous as well as harmless. Uranium is not, after all, the only metal being extracted that has potential environmental risks. Despite this, uranium specifically, unlike for example arsenic and lead, has been covered by its own special legislation that has rather aimed at making it more difficult for the nuclear power industry than at protecting the environment.

Mr. Speaker! Alunschiefer must also be mentioned here. It is a rock type that has caused debate in recent times. It is complex to extract minerals from alunschiefer. No one is claiming anything else, but that it is difficult or complex does not mean that it should be forbidden or made more difficult. It is, after all, the same Environmental Code and the same environmental consequences that shall govern regardless of the rock type. If it is more difficult, it is also innovation-driving.

We know that we have some of the sharpest companies in the world in the field, and they are backed by academia, where researchers ensure that we can maintain the lead in the area. Not even in SOU 2020:71 did one come to any conclusion other than that current environmental permit processes are sufficient to assess the risks of mining in alunschist.

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

A modern and environmentally smart mining industry does not only aim to create jobs and noise in AB Sweden's coffers. It also aims to strengthen our self-sufficiency of metals and minerals in the shaky world we currently find ourselves in.

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

Mr. Speaker! When we are talking about self-sufficiency and a shaky world: It may be controversial with uranium and alumschist, but our view on our assets of coal, oil, and gas appears to be even more controversial. How is it even possible that in times of global unrest and an increased state of preparedness, we do not see the extraction of our own natural gas as an obvious opportunity?

In Siljansringen alone, SGU estimates that there are around half a billion to a billion cubic meters of gas resources. Furthermore, a portion of this leaks out naturally without this resource being utilized at all. It is senseless, we believe. Natural gas is also more environmentally friendly than both oil and coal and results in lower carbon dioxide emissions. Can we really afford not to take advantage of this resource?

When we talk about whether we can afford it or not, I will finally come to a Sweden Democrat obsession within this policy area, namely the importance of starting to review the regulatory frameworks that govern the compensation to affected landowners and municipalities.

If we are to have more mines established and reach a higher degree of self-sufficiency, we must also create incentives for social acceptance. The importance of this cannot be overstated. I am fully convinced that a larger portion of the profits created by the natural resource extractions that occur locally in one way or another must be returned to the local community.

One way is a review of the mineral royalty in terms of size and distribution. Another way is the Sweden Democrats' proposal for a municipalization or regionalization of the property tax for industrial properties and power production facilities. Such a reform could undoubtedly contribute in a positive way, not least against the background that the workforce today often comes from outside and thus does not pay tax in the municipality where the mining activity actually takes place.

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

Isak From (S)

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

During the current parliamentary term, when Sverigedemokraterna has been the active supporting party to the governing parties, we have seen withdrawn, paused, and bankrupt green investments in succession. We can only state that.

I followed the debate on industrial policy here earlier, when the Sverigedemokraterna member threw pretty much the entire EU membership under the bus and spoke ill of practically all parts of the EU membership. At that point, I thought I would bring up the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act, which the mining and minerals industry has hailed – not least because it clearly points out what the member states must do in the form of shortening the permit processes.

We have actually not seen any active measures from the government in that area. SGU has admittedly received some assignments, but in terms of shortening permit processing times, we have seen nothing. The government parties have raised that they are planning for a new environmental authority, but there is nothing about what that authority shall contain or what requirements shall come from that authority.

Since the Sweden Democrats are the major influential party in this government base, perhaps Eric Palmqvist can sort this out. How is Sweden to achieve the Critical Raw Materials Act requirements?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

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

When it comes to EU membership, I have no other position than the party otherwise. When it comes to CRMA or Critical Raw Materials Act, I share the industry's enthusiasm for it.

Then the member knows very well that the environmental permit issue is not even handled in our committee. It is another committee, the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, that handles it. But I can assure the member that the contacts I have with the relevant department indicate that such far-reaching work is underway and will be launched during the spring. I imagine that it is one of the bills that we will handle here in the chamber during the spring.

Exactly what the forms will look like for the newly established authority that is being discussed, the details of which I do not quite know, I naturally cannot account for here today. I do not believe there is anyone in this chamber who can fully account for it.

I note, in any case, that the signals we send out from the Tidö parties are interpreted positively by the industry as such, not least against the background that the willingness to prospect has increased. I can mention a small thing that is actually very simple and which concerns the mineral hunt. Stimuli are already being provided at the grassroots level to map mineralizations in Sweden, and it is very positive that this is being done.

Instead of asking a concrete question, I think the member from From would gladly be invited to offer a self-reflection regarding how things looked before 2022, during the time when we had Social Democratic rule and a very low ranking in the Fraser Institute's ranking.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the level of ambition was high, in any case, regarding new green industrial projects, preferably linked to green steel.

Member of the Board Eric Palmqvist forgets that half of the granting of permits comes from this committee. The processing concession and the prospecting permits are handled here in the Committee on Industry. Then, the permit process for the mines is a permit process in four parts, where it is the whole that determines whether one is to be allowed to start with mining.

I can also state that the Social Democratic Party and the Social Democrat-led government were forced to make decisions on emergency measures when it came to granting permits to mine limestone. Now we see the effects. After four years, not a single measure has been taken so that we can mine more limestone on Gotland, and limestone is important for the steel industry. On the contrary, more and more permits are being rejected and larger and larger shipments of limestone are being imported, not least from Turkey. That is what the Tidö parties are leaving behind.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I noted no question from Member From, but Member From lingered a bit on the chalk.

Yes, what shall one say about limestone? For one thing, it is not a concession mineral but an industrial mineral. But what the member From actually should devote some attention to and reflect a little on is: How did we end up there? How did we end up, at all, in a situation where limestone, something that exists abundantly in the Swedish bedrock, could become a shortage in Sweden? How did we end up there? How did we end up in a position where we were forced to take panic measures in order to be able to secure Swedish housing production, Swedish mining industry, and Swedish construction? How did we end up there?

It was definitely not the Sweden Democrats' fault; I can assure you that. It was not due to the blue side at all. It was possibly not the Social Democrats' fault, but perhaps it was due to the company one kept when governing Sweden. I would, in any case, like to assert that it was so. The member is welcome to disprove me. But since this is the closing remark and the questions that may be asked by me will remain hanging in the air, I will settle for that and thank you for the exchange of remarks.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Eric Palmqvist for, as usual, describing the love for the mine in a very poetic and beautiful way. He describes how one, as a resident of a mining municipality, feels the mine, hears the mine, lives near the mine, and in some cases lives in symbiosis with the mine.

I can understand that, and I can also understand that it can provide security and make one feel that there is prosperity all around. I have full understanding of that. But when a municipality becomes so closely tied to a mine that the mine affects everything one does in the municipality and governs the municipality's activities, I also understand those people who feel great concern when new mining projects are underway, because it has a large and powerful effect on one's residential environment and living environment when a mine ends up next to one.

I therefore have a question. Now we have cases underway, and regarding new mining projects, one should no longer be able to say no to the extraction of uranium. The municipal veto is to be abolished, and the Riksdag has previously removed the ban on the extraction of uranium. I want to know if the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind the idea that local residents should not be allowed to comment when it comes to the municipal veto. How do the Sverigedemokraterna view that question?

The Tidö government has also opened up for that a new municipal veto against mining in alumschist should be introduced instead. This is something that several Tidö representatives have expressed. I wonder if the Sweden Democrats stand behind this or not.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Luhr, for the questions and for the praise – the member spoke of my speech as poetic. It does not happen every day, I can assure you, but it is flattering.

We want to equate uranium with other concession minerals. If one disregards the purely radioactive properties of uranium, we experience that when it comes to the uranium ban that has existed and the handling surrounding uranium, the special legislation has very much aimed at making it difficult for the nuclear power industry and for Sweden as a nuclear power nation.

There was a decision that we would no longer have nuclear power in Sweden, so they did not want the fuel either. If we are to have nuclear power, we should logically be able to potentially extract at least some of the fuel here in Sweden as well.

When it comes to alunschiefer, our starting point is exactly as I said in my speech: that having challenges is innovation-driving. We know that it is difficult, no one is claiming otherwise, but that it is difficult does not mean that it is impossible. It must be up to the industry to develop the right techniques to do this in a way that is in line with environmental legislation. If one cannot do that, one should not mine, but if one can show that one can do this in a good way, that should also be okay.

When it comes to the concern of those who are not used to living near a mine, I want to say that concern is natural. That must, of course, be acknowledged. It also presupposes that they receive all the cards and all the facts on the table. That is the least one can assume.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think I received answers to the questions I actually wanted answers to.

It is about the government having removed the ban on uranium mining. I know that the Sweden Democrats are behind the removal of that ban; it is clear. Now they also intend to remove the municipal veto so that the municipalities will not be able to have their say if someone wants to start a uranium mine. This has been up for discussion, and I want to know what the Sweden Democrats' position is on the removal of the municipal veto.

There will also be an additional layer to this, namely that representatives for the Tidö parties and the government parties have come out and said that when one removes the municipal veto for uranium mining, it shall be replaced with a municipal veto against mining in alunschist.

This is quite crucial for those who are now sitting and are worried that the municipal veto is being removed and who feel that this might still be okay if a new veto against mining in alunschist is introduced. Therefore, I want to know what the Sverigedemokraterna's position is on introducing a new municipal veto and replacing the veto against uranium mining with a municipal veto against mining in alunschist.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to once again thank Member Katarina Luhr for the questions. I believe I have answered these questions.

I want to emphasize that I am not negotiating this, but rather we have a coordination unit that coordinates this. Our starting point in this is exactly as I said, that it is not the bedrock itself that is limiting, but the environmental consequences that are described and that the companies account for.

Therefore, our starting point is not that a special veto is needed for alunschist. It may be that the negotiation yields something else, but our starting point is that the rock itself is not restrictive. The environmental permit process shall be the same regardless of the rock type. More consequences must not be permitted simply because it is a different and more complex bedrock to mine in.

It is also the case that much of the Swedish uranium occurs in alunschist, but it is not the only thing that exists in alunschist, and vice versa. There is some kind of interpretation that this should be connected, but it does not necessarily have to be connected.

I want to say again that we equate uranium with other concession minerals. There are no municipal vetoes regarding anything else, whether it is lead, arsenic or any other toxic metal. We consider this as part of the collective state property that we own together when it comes to our bedrock. Consequently, we have no other view on uranium in that respect.

I want to go back to what I said in the conclusion and did not quite have time for at the end. Fear of something new and unknown – whether it is a new railway, a new port, a new mine or some other industry – is justified. People naturally deserve to have their questions answered. We do, however, know that people cried in Pajala when the mine they had first protested against was closed down and ended up in a sack of ore.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Industry's motion report 16 on mineral policy. I begin – so that I do not forget – by moving for approval of our reservation 17, which is a motive reservation.

Relatively new research from LTU shows that iron has been mined and processed, that steel has been forged, and that it has been extracted from lakes and marshes in northern Sweden for over 3,000 years. This was therefore contemporary with the finds from Mesopotamia in present-day Iraq that were previously considered to be the oldest.

They did this and prepared this fossil-free with charcoal. It did not reach those temperatures and did not get the exact hardness that Swedish steel has today, when Swedish steel is used in special applications in very many different products worldwide.

Regardless of what one thinks about Trump's tariffs, many American companies believe that it is precisely the Swedish processed steel that they need to utilize. Very many of the manufacturers in the automotive industry think that what is about to be produced in the form of fossil-free steel from northern Sweden is very good and very important.

In that respect, it is very unfortunate that there are parties and representatives here in the Swedish Riksdag who time and again try to throw grit into the machinery that is intended to enable us to increase further processing, create more jobs, strengthen competitiveness, and become fossil-free.

The need for metals and minerals in the world is not decreasing, but rather increasing. The drivers to transition society in a fossil-free direction are great. The current geopolitical situation, and what happens with gasoline and diesel prices when the Strait of Hormuz is under attack, reminds us not least of the impact this has on us and what happens when one cannot access the fossil oil. It affects Sweden to a very large extent.

This means that many of the critical metals that the automotive industry and especially the electronics industry need now are produced and extracted in other countries – primarily China. Sweden's and Europe's very clear and large import dependency in this area shows that we, who actually could – and can – extract and further process these metals and minerals, must do so.

We were some Social Democratic members of Parliament who, during the plenary week, visited Zambia. Zambia has one of the world's perhaps largest deposits of copper and associated minerals. Zambia's economy is largely dependent on the mining industry, which is comprised of Canadian and South African companies that pay and try to do the right thing. A new actor has, however, entered the scene, and that is China.

Strong criticism has come from representatives of both Zambia and parts of southern Africa as well as the UN regarding how China exploits its position of power by blackmailing and imposing unreasonable demands. What has been particularly highlighted in several of the reports that have come from the UN is that the working conditions in the Chinese mines do not meet even the minimum requirements that should be set for the conditions of mining work. In addition, many have lost their jobs because, in the face of criticism, China chooses instead to hire labor from China and Indonesia.

This further points out that we must do much more, and therefore I return to the question regarding the Critical Raw Materials Act. We think it is good and reasonable. We have a reservation in the report that Sweden shall introduce a fast track. We have also previously posed the question here in the chamber – we have had an interpellation debate with the responsible minister – regarding what happens with the mineral strategy and when it is finished. We debated the strategy here a year ago, and now we heard in Eric Palmqvist's presentation that it should be ready. However, we still have not seen any delivery of a mineral strategy or what it contains.

The current mineral strategy, which did not take into account at all the geopolitical conditions we see today, was indeed developed by the alliance government and Annie Lööf, so it is clear that quite a lot has actually happened. We also understand that the permit processes can be difficult now just as they were difficult previously. They are difficult trade-offs between different interests when it comes to what might potentially take precedence.

Last week, Bergsstaten decided to refer the deposit in Norra Kärr to the government for a decision. At the same time, it was raised that there are eight or nine – I am a bit unsure – mining projects awaiting a decision on the government's table. It is clear that it is good to show the direction somewhere. What is it that is wanted? What is it that should take precedence? This will also send signals both to those who are pushing to get a permit and to those who are pushing for something else to take precedence.

I merely state, in the utmost humility, that it may perhaps not be so easy for governments, regardless of color. This, in fact, lands on the government's table for a decision, and then one must weigh different interests against one another.

We have some reservations in the report, and we have a motive reservation regarding alunschist. For our part, the issue is important. It is important from the perspective of the local population. It is important that the mining companies that are to operate in these areas are visible and speak with the population. It is very strange that there are such strong suspicions against our views on increased and ensured municipal influence.

If you do not get the local population on board and do not get the municipalities on board, it is doomed to fail, regardless of the project. The basis is that you have the local population and the municipalities you are to operate in with you – that you have their trust. The companies that are active and intend to extract various deposits or start some activity must be in contact with the municipalities and with the local population. None of the projects will work otherwise. Ensure, therefore, the municipal influence!

(Applause)

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all 18 motions.

Mineral policy is very important for Sweden's future industry; it is well known in this assembly. It is also important for Sweden as a country to have a high prosperity and a growing business sector with new job opportunities. If more mines can be established, it can provide very many new job opportunities, and they are often located in places where unemployment is slightly higher than in Stockholm etcetera.

The mining industry is one of our basic industries. The mines are the first step in refining products. The ore we extract from the mountain in the north will, after many steps, be refined into a car that rolls out from Torslanda or from Scania in Södertälje.

It was mentioned here in the speaker's chair that American companies want to buy SSAB steel, and that is quite correct. However, there are problems in some countries where there are old decisions – in the USA, for example, one must buy American steel when bidding on federal assignments. Then one is not allowed to buy from SSAB even though SSAB's steel is the world's best, which everyone here knows.

Mr. Speaker! Making Sweden self-sufficient in minerals is crucial for the industry of the future. We must reduce the dependence on China, which has been mentioned here. This applies, for example, to batteries, fuel cells, electric motors, robots – drones, not least – as well as circuit chips and solar cells. Products that we are most dependent on China for are such as those involving wind power as well as batteries for cars. Electric motors, however, we can manufacture ourselves via ABB in Västerås and Ludvika, which are leaders in the manufacture of electric motors.

We have decided here in the Riksdag on the change of the environmental assessment and Natura 2000 areas, and it is applicable law. The double assessment has been removed, and the change has been very appreciated by the industry.

Mr. Speaker! It is of great importance that we open up for new mineral mining in the country. It is of great importance that the permit processes become predictable and that the processes are shortened in time. Five years is mentioned by the industry as a suitable maximum time because otherwise it is difficult to plan. These are expensive processes, and if one is to go in and invest, one wants to know that one gets a yes or a no within five years.

Furthermore, economic considerations should be included in the permit process, which is not quite the case today. The municipal veto is questioned by those of us who want to advance mines, but as Member From mentioned, it is also important to take the local population into account. The point is to find the right balance here; it is not black and white. I believe, however, that we must be able to push forward a bit tougher if we are to succeed in becoming independent of China. An investigation on this is underway, and we will have to see what it results in.

We have a number of large deposits that should become mines. Among others, we have a large deposit in Lilla Edet municipality where there is an enormous amount of copper. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this. Prospecting has begun. This is a step in reducing the dependence on China, from where a large part of the metals are purchased today.

100 percent of the heavy rare earth metals that come to the EU come from China. Turkey accounts for 99 percent when it comes to boron. South Africa accounts for 75 percent when it comes to platinum.

Sweden has twelve producing mines today; that is more than I thought. LKAB has the ambition to increase the extraction from the existing mine down to approximately 1,700 meters. This requires a further restructuring of existing residential areas. Approximately 600 villas must be moved or demolished. It is of great importance that the property owners are treated with respect. LKAB offers buyout at 125 percent of the market value. New detached houses, condominiums, or rental apartments are also offered if desired.

LKAB also plans to open the Per Geijer mine. The EU has given a positive decision that the mine has been granted a fast-track in the assessment. Since May 2024, the EU has had new legislation, CRMA, for what are called strategic and critical raw materials. The ore is of extremely high quality. The mine can become as large as the existing Kirunafyndigheten.

Hopefully we will soon have another mine, namely the Viscariagruvan mine outside Kiruna.

There are minerals that we do not mine but that we have the possibility to mine. It concerns vanadium, cobalt, lithium and uranium.

Mr. Speaker! If we manage to achieve this, I believe that long-term sustainable jobs will be created without overly generous state subsidies. It is a matter of having a strong industrial policy and letting demand drive the way.

We must be clear that LKAB, over the last ten years, has averaged a 37 percent profit on its operations, which is uniquely high. People talk about the retailers making a lot of money, but it is pocket change compared to what LKAB earns, if I may say so.

It is also of great importance that we understand that the Malmbanan must now be equipped, reinforced, and have meeting points between Kiruna and Narvik, so that the transports do not become so vulnerable.

We must ensure that Sweden becomes a competitive industrial country for the next generation. We must be able to prioritize mineral mining. It is of the utmost importance that we become self-sufficient in minerals to create better conditions for the next generation.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell Jansson for the speech. It was actually one of the more balanced speeches that Kjell Jansson has given, I can think.

LKAB – our joint company – generates prosperity for the entire country, and those who contribute to this should, of course, get something back. However, that was not why I requested the floor.

The Moderaterna have for quite some time, and actively, driven ownership rights issues. Now we have as practice that society pays 125 percent of the market value. When it comes to some other encroachments, for example, the completion and expansion of water and sewage systems, the municipalities do not get the same opportunities, because this must be paid for and because there will be large deduction costs that will fall on the municipalities in the future.

Can the Moderates imagine prioritizing that the municipalities affected by the large costs following mining establishments should receive more back?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

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

Property rights are central for us Moderates. That is the reason I am standing here – otherwise, I would not have needed to be here at all.

I am an archipelago resident. Property rights there have been threatened for many years, not so much by the Social Democrats as by authorities who want to move forward with cables.

This question is difficult. It is municipal self-determination that decides whether one builds out. If one is to build mines, it is not about municipal self-determination but about initiatives from companies or from the state, and it is the state that ultimately decides the matter.

This is, as has been said, tricky. I worked with these issues back home in Norrtälje. I could argue that the municipalities have gotten stuck in Svenskt Vatten's tariff, which is very unfavorable if it does not involve dense urban development. It works well in larger cities like Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, but it works terribly in Norrtälje. There, the transmission lines are so long that it becomes extremely expensive if one is to distribute it across the properties.

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Then Kjell Jansson has identified a problem. My question is whether Kjell Jansson and the Moderaterna can imagine pursuing this issue. I am thinking of the municipalities affected by secondary costs, such as new roads or water and sewage systems, which the municipalities currently must write off during certain periods and under certain unfavorable conditions, and which burden the borrowing capacity of the municipality and, in the long run, also result in increased costs in a way that the municipalities today cannot achieve full cost recovery for.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to roads, I do not think the state should finance anything. When it comes to roads for industrial projects, I wish that we would do as we did with housing projects when I was chairman of the municipal board. We entered into development agreements where the developer had to take a large part of the costs for the construction of roads and water. Then new things were built.

The question is more difficult when it concerns connecting old areas and houses that have existed for 50–60 years. In new development, I believe that one should work with development agreements and place as much as possible on the developer.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the same question to Kjell Jansson as I asked in a previous exchange of remarks. The question concerns the municipal veto.

The Tidö parties are removing the municipal veto for uranium mining; according to the plan, it will be removed this summer. Government representatives, primarily from the Liberals and Christian Democrats, have promised a new municipal veto against mining in alunschist that is to be quickly investigated.

As I understood Kjell Jansson's speech, the Moderaterna are not entirely keen on the new municipal veto either. Is it the case that the Moderaterna are hesitating here, or has it been decided that a new municipal veto against the mining of alunshiefer shall be introduced?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Luhr for the question.

I am not the one negotiating this; it is other people who are doing that. I am therefore not familiar with the details, but an investigation is underway that is supposed to be finished soon.

This is a very difficult question, but I can think like this: If we are to get the nation to function and make ourselves more independent of China, we must actually sometimes sacrifice the municipal veto to some extent. However, the companies that are to operate the mines must compensate the municipalities, which is highly reasonable.

It is difficult with new mines. The luck in Kiruna, where one can expand and create new mines, is that the entire town and the region are dependent on LKAB and that the majority of the inhabitants work there. Therefore, it works. It is much more difficult in other places. To, for example, open a copper mine in Lilla Edet is not as easy. The question is not simple; it is not black or white.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell Jansson for the answer.

It is a bit challenging, because in these debates I do not always know whether it is Kjell Jansson's personal opinion that is reflected in the speeches or if it is the Moderaternas opinion.

This is quite important for those who today are very worried that the municipal veto will be removed. An investigation is underway, and ministers have promised a new municipal veto after the election. But now it appears that the Sweden Democrats and perhaps also the Moderates are not in favor of the new veto. It will be quite decisive if it is only the Christian Democrats and the Liberals who push this issue after the election if the two large, potentially government-forming parties are against it.

Therefore, I would like to have a clear answer on how the Moderaterna stand on this issue. Does one want to introduce a new municipal veto against mining in alum shales?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Luhr.

As I said in my previous answer: It is not black or white. An investigation is currently underway, and I do not know what it will conclude. It has been said that the veto should remain for extraction in alunschist. I cannot, however, answer with certainty, because I am not involved in the negotiations regarding this.

Personally, I think that in the end, it is paramount to extract minerals, but that one must take into account neighbors, property owners, and others.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! What has changed since perhaps two decades ago is that the climate issue has become a matter of destiny for many policy areas. Or rather, we politicians must take into account different trade-offs so that Sweden reaches the climate goals, and that in turn affects our decisions in many different areas in a chain. Mineral policy is no exception.

When we are now going to move from fossil to renewable, sustainable and green, "ingredients" are needed to put the whole together. That requires minerals that occur in nature and their chemical compositions and crystal structures. That is our challenge today. But it also requires mines to access the substances needed in the transition, and then there will, of course, be interventions in nature and the immediate environment. Here, different interests will obviously collide, or at least one will argue over whose interests weigh heaviest. Everyone realizes that minerals are needed, but often one comes to the conclusion "yes, mine, but not here."

Kiruna has the world's largest underground mine for iron ore, and in the municipality, there is also a deposit of graphite in Vittangi. I have been on-site there twice and tried to form an opinion on how this would affect the surroundings and everything else. What I concluded after visiting the site and listening to the company Talga was that if one cannot open this mine, one probably cannot open a mine anywhere in Sweden. That was my spontaneous reaction.

Well, then came the announcement that the local political leadership in Kiruna refuses to create a detailed development plan for the area, which is necessary to move forward with the project. My first thought was, without swearing, what the "h" are they doing? But when I had listened to my party colleagues and also read what the chairman of the municipal executive board had presented, I understood the dilemma. What would 30–40 jobs mean for the municipality today? Probably more problems than hope for the future. Kiruna lacks human capital, people, who can take the jobs offered. The answer from those in power in Kiruna was clear: We cannot handle another mine today.

I have said it before: One cannot blame the people of Kiruna for being negatively disposed towards mines, for they are moving large parts of the city and are prepared to move another 6,000 people with their belongings just so that the iron ore in the world's largest underground mine can be excavated.

The Minister, however, pointed with his whole hand and said that the county administrative board would produce the detailed development plan regardless of what the people of Kiruna think. But I mean that if one is to achieve a sense of cohesion, one cannot decide by force what the future of the people of Kiruna shall look like.

I say this with determination: If we do not manage to establish a system where more of the values extracted remain as something the population sees and feels, we will not succeed with the green transition, as it is so nicely called. This applies not only to minerals but also to other natural resources that are extracted locally.

In international comparison, Sweden has a very low mineral royalty, 2 per mille. I and other representatives for Vänsterpartiet have for a long time highlighted the need to increase the mineral royalty. In my opinion, mining companies should contribute more to the communities where they operate, and more money should go back to the locations where the mining takes place.

Companies that further process their raw materials locally should perhaps have a lower mineral fee than those companies that do not. The fee should decrease in proportion to what part of the mined mineral is further processed locally. This would provide an incentive to process more locally and mean that important values from the extraction remain where the mining takes place, which would promote local communities and create jobs. Local further processing would also reduce transport and be a step towards a more sustainable mining industry both ecologically and socially.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations but move for approval only to reservation 8 regarding the mineral substitution.

In the report, there are some reservations regarding permit processes, and I also do not think it is good when applications take several years or decades. It is just as bad if an application lies with the government for years. Regardless of what the decision is, it is better for all parties that a decision is produced. That we should have faster processes is perhaps relevant, but to start making environmental assessments easier or less extensive will only lead to more problems in the future.

Even serious mining companies realize that decisions should not be rushed. I also understand that a serious and carefully elaborated proposal is required on how permit processes should be handled.

Viscarias vd Jörgen Olsson was clear about how he viewed simplified processes for economic reasons: ”I think much of it is bullshit from little clowns who think it should be easy to open a mine. Those who complain are those who cannot afford to make a permit application or conduct such an activity. In that case, I have said that one should open a hot dog stand instead.”

It says a lot about the fact that one should not be able to cheat when it concerns a mining operation that is to be there for decades. But I say at the same time as I said earlier: Unnecessary bureaucracy is perhaps also not the best.

Mr. Speaker! Once again, the government shows its view on local communities. That the municipal veto for uranium mining was removed shows, first and foremost, how the government views democracy. I am honestly worried on many points about which direction we are heading. With super-small margins, the government pushes ahead and changes laws and regulations for things that they actually do not have support for out there among their own voters.

As said: History will be written, and I am convinced that those responsible will pay the price.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is and has long been a strong mining nation. We have unique geological conditions in our elongated country, something that Swedish innovation and engineering have taken advantage of. We have built a strong mining industry which in turn has contributed to Swedish prosperity and our welfare.

Today we are speaking about metal and mineral policy in a different way than just a few years ago. Swedish mining has previously primarily been mentioned in contexts concerning industry and growth as a self-evident prerequisite for our development. But today, Sweden, like the rest of the world, finds itself in an increasingly precarious position. Mineral policy is now also characterized by a defense and preparedness perspective.

The setbacks continue to follow one another. The pandemic, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the increasingly uncertain global situation have reminded us of how vulnerable our supply chains are. The world is shaking, and we have had to remember what it is we actually hold dear and what it is we want to defend: our freedom, our welfare, and our environment.

These values are not self-evident. Therefore, it was not a day too early when Sweden joined Nato and clearly told the rest of the world where our loyalty lies.

Madam Speaker! The will for independence from foreign powers has been actualized, not least within mineral policy. China dominates today's market for metals and minerals, especially when it comes to rare earth elements. China has different loyalties than Sweden and Europe and a different view on human rights, the environment, and climate.

Both Sweden and Europe are therefore working to increase their self-sufficiency in order to safeguard their freedom and take responsibility for the climate. In this challenge, there are also opportunities in the form of a market where Sweden has good conditions to compete and where the task of politics is to guard competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has 13 producing mines today. Europe accounts for around 3 percent of global metal production but uses approximately 25 percent. At the same time, demand is increasing sharply as a result of electrification, the climate transition, digitalization, and a deteriorated security policy situation. The mines that exist today are not sufficient to meet this need. To strengthen Sweden's and Europe's self-sufficiency, we therefore need to open more.

During this mandate period, the government has worked actively to pave the way for more mines:

The government is currently working on developing a new mineral strategy to replace the one developed in 2013. At the same time, Swedish mineral policy is being adapted to the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act, which clarifies the need for increased domestic production of strategic raw materials in member states with good conditions.

The government is reforming the environmental review, among other things through proposals to establish a new environmental review authority. This is not being done to compromise on environmental requirements but to coordinate and streamline the permit processes.

The Geological Survey of Sweden, SGU, has received increased resources and a mandate to map our mineral resources as well as strengthen research and innovation within the mining sector.

Recycling and circularity are promoted to create a more sustainable mining industry. Among other things, Naturvårdsverket has been commissioned to develop a national program for the circularity of critical raw materials.

The government has also enabled uranium mining, which primarily can occur as a byproduct of other mining. At the same time, a municipal veto for mining in alunschist is now being investigated.

Madam Speaker! I say it again: It is better to open mines in Sweden, which is a country with some of the world's strictest environmental legislations, than to be dependent on metals and minerals extracted in countries such as China and Congo, where production often occurs at the expense of climate, environment, and human rights.

The Swedish mining and minerals industry is of great importance for Sweden's development. We have a long tradition as a mining nation and unique geological assets that should be utilized and developed in an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable way. Secure and sustainable access to metals and minerals is necessary for the climate transition, Swedish industrial competitiveness, the electrification of society, and our resilience against foreign powers.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and would at the same time like to say that the government is preparing quite many of the issues requested in the motion report.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Brodin for the speech!

I am curious about the new mineral strategy. I know that as early as the beginning of the mandate period, one could hear Ebba Busch say that the mineral strategy would be on the table at the end of 2024, and in the mineral debate that we had here about a year ago, the government representatives said that the mineral strategy would soon be ready and available.

This is a strategy that is longed for by many, actually also by Miljöpartiet. We want to see what the mineral strategy contains. We also know that the mining industry and the business community really want to see the strategy.

That is why I wonder when the strategy will arrive. What is it that is delaying the work? Are the government parties in disagreement, or are there new areas that need to be investigated? Will we see the strategy before the mandate period is over?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question! I understand that very many are requesting the strategy and that it is eagerly awaited, because it is necessary to know what we are to hold ourselves to moving forward.

The strategy will come. It is coming soon. It is like on Christmas Eve: One has to endure a little bit to see what it contains.

There is no doubt that it is coming. Exactly which day I cannot say. It is pleasing that more people see this as a long-awaited product!

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

As we have said, many of us look forward to seeing a draft of the new strategy, as there are many parts that need to be fulfilled.

I naturally want to ask the question about the municipal veto against mining in alunschist, because I know that several ministers have been out and promised that such a thing will come. We have now during the debate heard that neither the Sweden Democrats nor probably the Moderates stand behind the development of a new municipal veto.

I therefore wonder how the Christian Democrats view the promise of a new veto. Is this something that the Christian Democrats also promise in the event that they receive over 51 percent in the election? Will there then be a municipal veto against mining in alunschist?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the thought that there might eventually be a chance for the Christian Democrats to get over 51 percent after the next election! Not even I believe in that.

However, there is no doubt about where the Christian Democrats stand on the issue, for we also see the concern that exists among very many citizens. We also see that Sweden has a very rigid environmental legislation, which actually should be sufficient. But there needs to be a municipal veto when one is to break alunschist.

I find it quite interesting to hear that Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a municipal veto for just mining when one does not want to see a municipal veto for wind power. It is an interesting combination. There are citizens who are worried about both one and the other, so I do not quite understand how one can draw that conclusion. We can take that in another debate, but thank you for the question!

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker and Member Brodin! I heard the Member say in his speech that we must open more mines in Sweden and that it is better that we open mines in Sweden than that we buy minerals from rogue states, or whatever one wants to call them.

Okay, but what does the Christian Democrats' plan look like for how we are to get people to these mining towns? It doesn't help, at least, for the minister to point with the whole hand and say: You get 30–40 jobs!

As I said in my speech, Kiruna does not lack job opportunities today, rather, it lacks people. This government does zero to get people to move. The northernmost minister is in Borlänge. I want to assert that the government has not exactly worked itself to death for northern Sweden. What does the Christian Democrats' plan look like for how to create incentives for a mining area to grow together with the green transition?

I naturally hope that the Christian Democrats will never ever have such great power. But anything can happen, so I ask anyway: What does the plan look like for the Christian Democrats?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the question!

This is something that both I and my party see as somewhat worrying when we also see all the development taking place in northern Sweden. The supply of skills is something we have looked at for a long time but have not really been able to manage.

We Christian Democrats have not sat idly by during the mandate period. Despite being in the government and being fully occupied with governing the country, we have also developed our policy. As a Christian Democrat, I can proudly say that Birger Lahti is welcome to read our social construction report, where we have a number of different proposals. I hope that we can also be given the opportunity to drive this further.

If a new mine is opened, it becomes a kind of new-build municipality. Then we want to see that the increased revenues regarding the general wage contribution come to the municipalities. We want to see a growth bonus for these municipalities, where the daily wage sum and the number of work opportunities could come to the municipalities.

These are just some of the proposals we have. We also need to look at many of these fly-in/fly-out parts. We will take care of that with this. Regardless of whether one is to build power lines, nuclear power, wind power or hydropower, for that part, the municipalities must get something back. That has been the Christian Democrats' original point of view for quite a few years.

The Christian Democrats are not the largest in the government, and then one does not get everything through. But do not give up hope! We harbor great hope that we will be able to believe in Sweden and that Sweden will be able to believe in itself as the welfare nation the country still is. We know what both the forests, the steel, and the mines have contributed to Sweden.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

If Kiruna and Malmfälten had retained the support that existed for the new construction of housing, it would have meant 2,000 kronor in lower rent for a three-room apartment. Then we would have had developers who would have built there. But they are not in the queue, because it is difficult to build with the cost that it entails.

The investment support was the first thing that this government removed. It was something that would have helped, and it was already helping. We know how it worked in Gällivare and how much lower the rent the support entailed. But the investment support was, therefore, what the government removed first of all.

I think it is a strange prioritization of measures by the government if one wants someone to be able to live in northern Sweden. I have spoken about the graphite mine in Vittangi. The government overrode the people of Kiruna and had no answer for them regarding how this could be felt as their mine.

It is about 30–40 jobs, and that means problems. There are no cheers from anyone in Kiruna because a foreign company gets to come in and dig up our minerals. They are not coming there and opening a mine because they feel sorry for Sweden; they are obviously coming there to make money.

KD must now think about how the distribution will be. As many others have pointed out: If one does not achieve a consensus in a society that it is our mine and our investment, one will never succeed.

The view that one has on the liberal side and in this government is that everything one tries to distribute to the countryside is subsidies, while the rut and rot subsidies, on the other hand, are truly good investments.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for sharing the concern that exists in northern Sweden!

Regardless of whether we have a member of Parliament from northern Sweden or not, we care about the whole country. The government has a policy that stands firm and which means that one gets a little more left in one's own wallet. It enables personal choices in life; this government has truly ensured that.

I can repeat what I said earlier: The municipalities must get something back. But we are also reviewing, for example, the mineral fee, which could also be something that can meet the different needs.

If we move on to the housing policy and infrastructure – I assume that infrastructure would have been addressed if we had had a round of questions – we need to collectively ensure that we provide the conditions without overriding the municipalities.

The government has the largest infrastructure budget ever, and we have the Norrland Fund, which the Christian Democrats would like to see placed in more places in the country because it is not just about northern Sweden. There are many parts of Sweden that need help from the state, but the municipalities and regions must also pull their weight. It is also about that as a human being, one should be able to choose a bit more when it comes to what one allocates their funds to.

Regardless of rut and rot – see it as an opportunity, and do not see it as an evil omen! Here we place freedom of choice highly, and freedom shall prevail. We shall provide the conditions for Sweden to be able to believe in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Mineral policy is an area that has two given starting points for the Centre Party.

Firstly: Sweden needs to develop as an industrial nation and have an offensive mineral policy.

Secondly: Sweden needs to protect people's interests, the neighbors, as well as their and everyone's environment.

Sometimes these two perspectives go hand in hand, and sometimes they become conflicting goals.

The bad news with the mineral policy is that Sweden and the EU are largely dependent on imports of innovation-critical metals and minerals – furthermore from a few countries, which makes the supply vulnerable and security-politically risky.

On the other hand, the good news is that Sweden has substantial deposits of precisely these metals. We also have good conditions to carry out a sustainable extraction of them. This also creates significant export opportunities.

Innovation-critical metals are a limited resource. Large-scale recycling of these metals and minerals is absolutely central and can become a Swedish area of expertise in the green transition, which we can in turn export. Recycling alone, however, will not be able to meet the increased needs of the future. Sweden should therefore be developed as the sustainable, inclusive mineral nation.

The mining and minerals industry is significant for Sweden already today, and we certainly have proud traditions. Not least, the mining industry contributes to jobs and growth in places where there is often a shortage of employment opportunities. The mining industry in itself contributes to innovation in the sub-supplier chain. Those who have been down in a mine and seen the modern, electric-powered machines used today understand how the industry itself fosters a green innovation.

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot compete with cheap labor and raw materials. This is truly true, not least when it comes to minerals and metals. The mines are only the beginning of long and growing value chains. The metals and minerals that are extracted in Sweden can build the technology needed for sustainable and digital development – solar cells, batteries, electric cars, servers and much more.

But for the first step in these value chains to gain the necessary place in democratic Sweden, the perspective of the local population is required. We need to increase the inclusion of both the landowner and the local population. It is both about being involved in decision-making processes and about receiving necessary economic compensation. If all of Sweden is to live, we cannot drain the countryside of resources without reimbursement.

The government should investigate the conditions for increasing the mineral royalty, while the part of the royalty that currently goes to the state should instead go to the local communities whose immediate environment is affected by the extraction. This is central for us to develop as a democratic and sustainable mineral nation.

In the section on minerals, I move for approval of reservation 3.

Uran, Madam Speaker, belongs to the actinides, a series of elements, 15 of them, with very high atomic numbers. I myself had a mnemonic when I studied chemical engineering at Chalmers in 1993. It went like this: Akta pappa, uppmanar nappungdjurets amerikanska kammarbjörks chef, Einstein fumlar med Noras lår – no great rhyme, but I remember it and know what it means. ”Lår” at the end means lawrencium; ”uppmanar” is uran.

Uranium is an element with different isotopes, that is, different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. However, it is always 92 protons. It is important to remember that natural uranium is a mixture that consists of 99.3 percent uranium-238. The rest is uranium-235 and a tiny fraction of uranium-234. It is uranium-235 we want, and because it is such low levels in naturally occurring uranium, it needs to be enriched. Nuclear power plants need a content of around 3 percent. The uranium we obtain must therefore always be enriched, purified, and so on.

Then, Madam Speaker, we come to the occurrence of uranium. In Sweden, uranium occurs scattered in the bedrock, primarily in alumschist in the mountain chain's random areas, Västergötland, Närke, and Skåne. The largest quantities are found in low-grade alumschist, while the high grades are found in the bedrock in Jämtland and Norrbotten.

The largest deposits are linked to alumschist, not least in Billingen outside Skövde in Västergötland. These schists contain fairly large amounts of uranium, but the concentrations are very low.

Madam Speaker! The extraction of uranium in alum shales is strongly linked to major environmental and health risks. For the Center Party, it is absolutely clear that we shall not mine uranium in Sweden. We shall also not mine alum shales. The health risks that exist for neighbors are far too great. The uncertainties are too great. The risks linked to contaminated groundwater and to agriculture far exceed any potential positive effects.

We are crystal clear here: No to uranium mining in Sweden!

At the party congress in November 2025, we made a decision to advocate for a specific ban on all extraction of minerals and metals from alumschist. We, as a party, adhere to our internal democratic processes, Madam Speaker, and naturally follow the decision of the party congress.

However, an important point – to link back to the beginning of my speech – is that Sweden must become a more developed mineral nation. Therefore, we see that it may be possible with so-called secondary extraction of uranium, that is, when metals and minerals have been mined and uranium is a byproduct. In those cases, we see it as possible to utilize the waste, not least considering the perspective of resource management.

Madam Speaker! Just as we safeguard people's health and the environment, we safeguard people's right to express their opinion and to participate in decisions regarding matters concerning their surroundings. Regarding uranium, the municipal veto must remain, now that the government has opened the floodgates for the mining of uranium in Sweden. The municipal veto has historically constituted an important instrument to ensure local democratic anchoring in matters with significant environmental and societal consequences.

The government has signaled changes in the regulatory framework regarding uranium mining, while a rapid investigation into a ban on mining in alumschist is underway. Since a significant portion of potential uranium deposits in Sweden are linked to exactly alumschist, this highlights the need for a collective analysis.

Any changes to the municipal veto should not be implemented until the ongoing rapid investigation into alum shale is completed, the views of the referral bodies have been obtained, and the government has presented a comprehensive assessment of the consequences.

Madam Speaker! We are finished with bad legislation in Sweden!

In this speech, Birger Lahti (V) and Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! In January this year, a press release was issued by the government with the heading "New mines decisive for Sweden's total defense and economic security." Everyone who wanted to know more about the government's thoughts on this was, however, quite disappointed when nothing more was stated about how the government intends to handle the measures for these new mines. At the same time, the Minister for Enterprise stood at Folk och Försvar and underlined that new mines would be opened. Where the mines would be opened and how the government would go about opening them, she did not want to answer. It has sounded somewhat like that also in today's debate.

That we in Sweden and Europe today stand for a higher use of metal and minerals than what we produce is clear to everyone who takes an interest in the mineral issue. This also means that we today rely on countries that in some cases have an unacceptable working environment or environmental legislation, and countries where a changed national policy could quickly pull the rug out from under Sweden's supply chains. China, for example, has a strong position within green technology and dominates the market for rare earth elements, which at the current moment are completely crucial for rapid electrification.

Sweden's dependence on various raw materials and inputs is a geopolitical vulnerability in an increasingly uncertain global situation. It is therefore clear for many reasons that Sweden needs to act to increase its self-sufficiency of metal and minerals.

Miljöpartiet has long requested an updated strategy for a sustainable mineral and metal supply. Since both the existing mining industry and the opening of new mines will always have a large environmental impact, we want to ensure that Sweden reduces the need for new mines by primarily placing a large focus on circularity, resource efficiency, and the development of alternative materials. We also want Sweden to conduct efficient and sustainable mining in existing mines and simultaneously push for global value chains to become more sustainable.

Like everyone else, however, we do not believe that this is sufficient, as new mines will also need to be opened. Here, Sweden, as an old mining nation, needs to take a great responsibility in showing how one can conduct an active and strong sustainability work. The Swedish mining industry should be able to present itself as the world's best, both from a social and an environmental perspective.

In this way, Sweden can simultaneously contribute to international development by leading as an example when it comes to climate transition, resource efficiency, environmental consideration, social sustainability, and human rights. In order for us to be able to showcase the world's best mining industry, we need to act, and therefore we see a great need for a new mineral strategy with measures that steer in the right direction towards sustainability.

Madam Speaker! In last year's debate, our proposal for a sustainable mineral strategy was rejected because the Tidö parties underlined that the government's strategy, promised at the end of 2024, was under development. A year has passed, and we have, as we have previously discussed, still not seen any strategy. If Sweden is to be the mining superpower that the Minister for Enterprise speaks about, the government can start by putting the plan on the table.

The Green Party wants, as stated, to invest heavily in the recycling of metals and minerals. Sweden currently has large unused resources of metals, both in waste streams and in old mine tailings. We need to ensure that those metals are put to use instead of ending up on the sidelines or in landfills. Many of the metals that are in demand today can be found in mine waste, slag, and landfills. Depending on the waste type and substances, they can be extracted from the mine waste with varying degrees of difficulty and at different costs. We would like to initiate a comprehensive mapping of where larger quantities of metals and minerals, which have previously been handled in linear flows, can be found, and how they can be utilized for reuse. The mapping should then be followed by a national strategy for how metals and minerals should be extracted from the secondary resources that are available today.

Madam Speaker! To increase the circularity of metals and minerals, many different measures are needed, from support for research and development to the coordination of the work. We propose a new support, a recycling step, for increased recycling of strategic metals and minerals and a national coordinator to hold the work together. To enable a rapid expansion of recycling capacity and simultaneously reduce companies' investment risks, a temporary production support for the recycling of particularly strategic materials should also be introduced.

In addition to a strategy showing what a sustainable mineral supply should look like, we also want to see a clear action plan for this. If new mines are to be able to open, the local communities need to be involved in a constructive and meaningful way and indigenous peoples' rights must be respected.

New mines always entail a tangible local impact. They affect the local environment, the municipality, the neighbors, and existing businesses and activities. Mines are not something that can be forced upon communities. They require early dialogues, acceptance, and joint planning. It must be clear what the municipality can expect from the mining companies before, during, and after mining. The Government needs to take an active role in showing how new mining can be reconciled with the conditions of the local population, and not least the Sami.

As an indigenous people, the Sámi have the right to free, prior and informed consent regarding mining projects affecting their traditional lands. Today, the Sámi and reindeer husbandry are affected by a multitude of different activities on their lands, ranging from tourism and heliskiing to forestry and wind power expansion. It is therefore important that Sámi representatives have sufficient resources to be able to participate in a meaningful way in the consultation.

We also believe that the state needs to take a greater grip and a greater responsibility for how common mineral resources are managed and used. Today, there is a risk that the minerals that can be mined by foreign companies will not be used at all to strengthen Sweden's or Europe's resource needs, but instead, large values will be exported from the country. We want to see, among other things, a mining tax inspired by the mining tax that has been introduced in Finland.

When permit processes need to be accelerated, it must not happen by loosening environmental requirements that rather need to be tightened. To speed up permit processes, one can instead tighten the timeframes and strengthen the authorities' capacity to handle new applications. Through an early dialogue where the local population and affected municipalities are given something to say about for real and are involved in planning, and with a system where the municipalities can better share in the gains that come from the mining industry, one can also reduce the need to have to redo things late in the process. One can therefore save a lot of time by consulting with the local population early on. The purpose of an action plan is therefore to be able to meet the needs in the green transition while simultaneously strengthening the local community's role and influence.

Madam Speaker! Now I come to the part of my speech concerning which mining the Green Party does not want to see. It is about uranium mining, mining in alunschist, and deep-sea mining. For reasons to be stated, following today's debate, I also want to highlight the extraction of fossil fuels on Swedish soil.

In the autumn, we stood here and debated the government's proposal to remove the ban on uranium mining. Unfortunately, the proposal was passed by the Riksdag by a margin of one vote, and the new law entered into force on 1 January 2026.

I want to emphasize that Miljöpartiet has not changed its opinion since last autumn. The mining of uranium risks taking up large agricultural lands and causing serious impacts on the environment, groundwater, and people's health. We also find it difficult to see any economic or energy policy reasons to allow mining or mining facilities intended for uranium-bearing material. We have low levels of uranium in our deposits, and they will require enormous open-pit mines that still will not be sufficient to supply today's nuclear reactors in Sweden. There are also no guarantees that the uranium mined here will be used for our own nuclear power activities. It is therefore our view that the mining of uranium should be prohibited in Sweden.

That the government will this summer remove the municipal veto for uranium mining is also outrageous. Some kind of promise from the Minister for Climate and the Minister for Energy to introduce a new municipal veto against mining in alunschist after the election arrived late and cannot be relied upon. I think today's debate has shown that the Tidö government's parliamentary basis does not fully stand behind the promise.

It is of the utmost importance that local communities, those who are directly affected by uranium mining, are given the opportunity to influence whether a uranium mine should be opened at the site or not. We believe that the municipal veto for uranium mining needs to remain, absolutely, until a new veto is in place.

Regarding mining in alunschist, the occurrence of alunschist in Sweden is well mapped and geographically delimited. The historical mining in Sweden has had large and lasting effects, and the areas have not been able to be restored. The shallow deposits spread over large areas and coincide with several of Sweden's most valuable agricultural areas. The occurrence of alunschist is not limited to Örebro and Västra Götaland counties where mining has occurred before, but they are also found in Skåne, Jämtland and Östergötland, on Öland, in Sápmi and in the Baltic Sea. Today, there are many residents in these areas who are fighting against new mining in alunschist and the changed economic conditions for mining in alunschist when extraction of uranium is simultaneously permitted. We want to see a national ban on mining in alunschist.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to briefly point out that the global demand for metals has unfortunately also led to increased plans for deep-sea mining. Minerals such as cobalt, nickel, and lithium are found at several thousand meters deep. For Miljöpartiet, it is absolutely central that an increased need for metals and minerals must not occur at the expense of the oceans.

We want the government to take an active role in pushing for an international ban on deep-sea mining and mineral extraction until the environmental, social, and economic consequences are clearly investigated. The same applies, of course, to mining in the sea within national territory.

I naturally stand behind all my reservations in the report, but I particularly wish to move for the approval of reservations 15 and 16 in the report.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Katarina Luhr for the speech. It became clear that our two parties might not make a good radar pair in a government cooperation. So, one can at least express the matter.

The member of the government pointed out the mining tax that has been introduced in Finland as an example. I intended to ask the member if she is aware of what consequences it has had for the investment willingness of the mining industry in Finland.

Another thing is the recycling of already mined and processed material, which the member mentioned. It is good in principle and nothing that we oppose. But one should perhaps not have an over-reliance on it.

It would be interesting to hear the member's view on how far one should go to recover already wrecked material. Is, for example, the well-known wreck of the Titanic something that should be recycled, or should it lie where it lies? Should Estonia stay there or be recycled? Much of the material that we have produced is not easily accessible. It is old railway rails, it is sunken ships, and it is satellites and the like.

I have more questions, but I will wait to ask them until my next turn and look forward to the member's answer to these two questions.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

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

I will start with recycling. No, we do not believe either that recycling of metals will be sufficient to cover the need we see. I also said in my speech that even we believe that new mines will be needed to cover the need we see today. But we believe that the need to open many new mines can be reduced if one can use the metals that have already been excavated and placed in landfills at the places where mining has taken place over many different decades. This also applies to metals that have been in use but are now not used.

No, I do not think we see Titanic as our primary goal for recycling metals. But we are proposing a national action plan so that one can map out where the large quantities of metals are. We also actually believe that Sweden needs to point out which metals need to be prioritized in the hunt for metals. For example, the electronic waste that exists can contain infinitely many different types of metals and in different concentrations. It will be very difficult and expensive to build facilities for recycling precisely all of those metals.

An action plan is needed to see which metals we want to prioritize and where we believe they are located. We also need to see where they are found in such high concentrations and in such large quantities that it can be reasonable to try to extract them, actually even when it comes to recycling.

There was a question to, and I have four seconds. It was about Finland's mining tax. We see many positive effects of that.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am all ears regarding what the positive effects have been for Finland. The indications we have seen are that the willingness to invest has decreased radically. The member is welcome to point out what is positive about that.

The members of the committee previously spoke about the low concentrations, primarily of uranium, being a problem and an argument against mining. In that case, I can say that in Aitik, the concentration of ores is exceptionally low, at least if one takes a broader view and compares it with how it looks in, for example, Africa. The grade that is mined in Aitik, in my home municipality, is even lower than that which ends up in landfills in many places in Africa, because they do not have the same fine technology as we have in Sweden. To speak of the low concentrations as an argument against mining, I therefore do not think is sustainable, given that we are and shall be better here.

The committee members also spoke about agricultural land. It is heart-wrenching. Sweden has a poor food self-sufficiency rate, which we all know. But it is not the case that active agricultural land will be taken into use to conduct mining. Those trade-offs are always made. I therefore do not see that as a supporting argument either.

When it comes to recycling, we are in agreement, at least as far as it is fully reasonable that one wants to recycle what is on the landfill. My question then is: Is the member prepared to make concessions in the existing regulations so that companies do not inherit old transgressions if they take on a project on already contaminated land?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Oh, there were many questions!

To begin with, we want to review the waste legislation in order to steer towards a more circular use. I think the review should point out whether there are advantages or disadvantages to us easing requirements for some or not. But we are absolutely prepared to open up and ensure that the legislation steers better towards the circular. We see a great need for that.

When it comes to low concentrations, it was about the uranium contents we see in Sweden that I mentioned. We know that the alum-shale uranium deposits often lie where there are good agricultural lands. Some are active. There, one will need to weigh this against each other. But many municipalities actually claim good agricultural land that is not used today and build, for example, residential areas, transshipment stations, and all sorts of things on the land. It is a challenge when we look at the self-sufficiency rate forward. We may need to become better at our own food supply and may need that agricultural land in the future.

I do not think it actually matters that much whether the land is active agricultural land or not. If we start mining uranium on it, it will not be able to be used as agricultural land in the future.

Regarding the low levels, it is about the fact that the levels are low and the open-pit mines are very large, and that one might not extract such large quantities as would be needed. That is also why it has been difficult to achieve profitability in our Swedish uranium deposits previously. So little uranium is extracted from the very large areas that are taken up.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 18.)

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