The National Audit Office's report on access to municipal water and sewage

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the National Audit Office's report. I thought for a long time about what I should say in today's debate, and I even wrote down some reservations. But after talks with my colleagues, we came to the conclusion that our political response should be in the right place, which is in the committee report on the bill regarding the management of land and water areas. That does not mean that we Social Democrats lack opinions, on the contrary, but we believe that it is in the committee report where the political choices belong.

At the same time, it is of course important to take the National Audit Office's report very seriously, and the National Audit Office clearly points out that the state is failing in its governance of the municipalities' responsibilities for water and sewage, especially when it comes to maintenance, renewal, and climate adaptation. The Government does agree with the problem description but lacks concrete proposals on how the situation should be improved. It is serious, because without clear requirements, there is a risk of ending up in a situation where particularly smaller municipalities cannot manage to take their responsibility. We Social Democrats have previously pointed out that small municipalities cannot bear the entire responsibility themselves. Water and sewage is not just a municipal issue but also a national welfare issue.

Large parts of Sweden's water and sewage systems were built in the 60s and 70s. It has served Sweden well but is now old. When the renewal rate lies below half a percent per year, a maintenance debt grows that no one can ignore any longer. When the government does not ensure that the municipalities' water service plans contain clear requirements for investments, climate adaptation, and long-term planning, one pushes the problems ahead of oneself.

We know that climate change is already affecting the availability of water. Downpours, droughts, and floods are no longer exceptions. The government should therefore have taken the opportunity to strengthen the role of water service plans as a tool to prevent future crises.

Madam Speaker! Svenskt Vatten, which represents the country's water organizations, has called the water system the forgotten infrastructure. It is estimated that investments of approximately 560 billion kronor are required until 2040. They also warn that today's financing model is insufficient and therefore write that a government inquiry is needed on how the future investments should be made.

This is not just a technical question, but it is about equality. The conditions for water and sewage are very different in different parts of Sweden. In the larger municipalities, there are both muscles and people, but in the small ones, often in the countryside, the economy is weaker and the costs are higher. So we cannot have that. Clean water is not a luxury. It is a right.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office also points out that the county administrative boards' supervision today is reactive, something we have also debated previously. They act only when something has already gone wrong. Supervision must be proactive with expanded powers and better coordination between authorities. Boverket, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish Food Agency, and the county administrative boards need to cooperate more systematically to ensure both quality and equivalence.

We mean that the government needs to look at what the state can help with when it comes to investments in water and sewage infrastructure. We also mean that welfare cannot depend on zip codes or where one lives.

Madam Speaker! Sweden built water and sewage systems throughout the country during the record years. It was one of the largest welfare projects in our history. It was based on the idea that welfare should be collective, fair, and accessible to everyone. I hope that idea still holds. It requires that we nurture what generations before us have built and that we in this chamber take responsibility for it.

Water is life. Clean water is a right, not a privilege. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that every human being, regardless of where they live in our elongated country, can rely on water coming out when they turn on the tap, preferably clean as well.

The National Audit Office's report is an important basis for the political work we now face. As I mentioned, we have no reservations in this matter, but the conclusions that the National Audit Office pointed out must be included in the upcoming report. We will continue to push for justice, for equality, and for the welfare of all of Sweden and even for water, where it must function in the entire country.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Denis Begic, for your speech!

It is a very important report that the Swedish National Audit Office has produced. Actually, it is two highlighted reports they have produced. In one, they examined the tax structure in Sweden and in the other, how the state has governed the municipalities.

I believe that the Moderates and the Social Democrats are fundamentally actually in agreement that this is a municipal issue. We do have municipal self-government in Sweden. When the National Audit Office speaks about the government, one must remember that it concerns S-led governments and Moderate-led governments.

I heard, for example, some criticism that there are no detailed provisions on what a water service plan should contain. When the Social Democrats submitted the 2021 proposition, it was thought that the municipalities would have a large scope to adapt the plan's content to the municipal conditions. In the same way, it was when the EU's drinking water directive was implemented. Then, it was also thought that it should be decided locally and that we, from a national level, should not make overly detailed restrictions.

I have a question. There is something that the Swedish National Audit Office does not address. When the Swedish National Audit Office was in the Committee on Civil Affairs, I asked the Auditor General that question. It concerns the mandatory connections that occur all over the country. The Swedish National Audit Office states in the report that the focus has been heavily on the expansion of the water and sewage network. Unfortunately, the municipalities have not prioritized maintenance, and furthermore, many individual properties are mandatorily connected instead of prioritizing the maintenance of what is already there.

I would like to know: How do the Social Democrats view the mandatory connections to the municipal water and sewage networks that are taking place?

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned in my speech roughly what Member Beckman took up, that we need to consider how we will have clean water in the future and how it will be purified.

I have myself been chairman of the environmental committee in Örebro and then made visits with the environmental inspectors and know how they have it. There are an enormous amount of threats against these people. I do not know if member Beckman has heard of this, but I have myself been present on several occasions when environmental inspectors have been threatened to life because they have not approved water facilities.

My municipality began to consider how these issues could be addressed, especially when building new areas. One thing was to manage both water supply and sewage but also be able to have drinking water. We have made decisions about things. For example, we can no longer take water from Svartån because it is so polluted. It is not solely due to agriculture that the water is being ruined, but also due to individual sewage systems. In parts of the community, individual sewage systems have polluted lakes.

I believe this is an issue that we need to discuss and work on. What will it look like regarding city and country? Where is it more important with mandatory connections? And what does it look like in the different parts of the country? I hope that was an answer to the question.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not think the residents of Sandviken became much wiser from the answer. In Sandviken in my constituency, we can see how the municipality is discharging. "Discharging" sounds a bit cute and nice, but concretely it means that the municipal water company is pumping sewage straight out into Storsjön – millions of liters. Those who are interested can go into Arbetarbladet and read about it.

If an individual property owner with a private sewage system or tank were to flush it, it would be illegal and an environmental crime, with all rights reserved, but the municipalities do flush. That is why many around Sweden are upset. You have functioning water and sewage facilities that you have paid for and funded yourself, and then the municipalities come and make an area and say that everyone must be compulsorily connected.

That is what is indirectly stated in the National Audit Office's report. There has been so much focus on mandatory connection and the expansion of the water and sewage network that maintenance has been overlooked, and people are forcing property owners who have well-functioning water and sewage systems to join. That is also a problem.

When we in broad agreement in 2021 adopted the legislation put forward by the then S-government, the idea was precisely that one would not have to be compulsorily connected. According to the old legislation, the municipalities were required to connect, but now there is another possibility.

I would like to have a slightly clearer statement from the Social Democrats. If one has a well-functioning individual sewage system, should one then be compulsorily connected to the municipal water and sewage network?

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Beckman, for the question!

I do not believe that one should be forcibly connected if one has well-functioning sewage treatment, but as I mentioned earlier, there are areas in Sweden where we have special nature and important natural values. There, we need to consider how the water should be treated in the future if the sewage leaks.

As I said, entire lakes in my own municipality have become contaminated by facilities that do not function. They might work for 20–25 years, but then something happens. No one knows what has happened before the municipality begins to investigate and look into it. We must include in the discussion how we are to have it in the future.

Not even Member Beckman can deny that we will have pollution that becomes worse and worse with each passing year with climate change. Today is November 5, and we see that it is very warm outside. One can walk around in just a jacket. Things and matters are changing, and then we need to be proactive regarding our water if future generations are to have anything to drink.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to listen to the exchange between the Social Democrats and the Moderates. I am glad that the Social Democrats mention small municipalities and the countryside. It is very good, but when it starts to become such panic as I see in my rural area, I almost wish sometimes that at least someone would come and give a damn. We lack people.

Now it is about the Swedish National Audit Office's report on access to municipal water and sewage. If there is anything that could be called a ticking bomb, it is probably the water and sewage facilities in many municipalities. The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether the state's efforts towards the municipalities regarding their responsibility to provide public water services are effective.

The National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the state's efforts are deficient in several respects, which collectively leads to the efforts not being effective.

If we look at how the state's role has changed historically, it once again becomes a picture of the state taking less and less responsibility for the common good and, above all, for sparsely populated municipalities. The hot potatoes end up with them again.

As early as 1944, the state contributed 30 percent of the costs for investments in water. At that time, it was not in the countryside, I can tell you. In the 1950s, when the expansion gained momentum, the state covered 75 percent of the cost of the expansion. When treatment plants began to be built, the state usually took more than 50 percent of the costs. But today, most municipalities finance their reinvestments through loans.

Madam Speaker! I am not really the right person to debate the subject. But I live in a municipality that has definitely made the citizens learn how fees are charged and what these are intended for. This applies according to 30 § of the Water Services Act: Fees that the municipality charges from users of the public water services shall follow the cost principle. This means that the total collection may not exceed what is needed to cover the costs that are necessary to organize and operate the water facility. Funds may, under certain conditions, be allocated to a fund for future new investments. I will return to that a bit later. When the water collective has been given increased tariffs of 70 percent across the board, then I can promise you that there will be reactions.

I note that there are many municipalities that have water and sewage facilities that are 70 years old. There are facilities that were built for a few hundred users, and today there may be one or two families utilizing the function of the facility.

There are small municipalities that have lost over half of their population. My home municipality has lost its population from 15,000 to 5,700. But the length of the lines can be the same. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to draw the conclusion that it will cost the collective or the users.

This is once again something that one really must look more into. Municipalities that today tax in the highest taxes are probably most often those municipalities that have lost the most in population, but they are expected to fix it.

What the National Audit Office says in its report is that the government has commissioned several inquiries that have, to varying degrees, looked at issues directly related to the Water Services Act, but it has taken few measures.

It is not reasonable for the municipality to raise the fees by 70 percent, as in my home municipality, and then it turns out that the public transport has been overcharged by several million. Then you use the money to improve the results in the municipal sector. So that is not how it should go, nor is it according to the law.

It is time that we once and for all get to the bottom of this issue for real. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1. What we propose in the reservation does not go all the way. I know that, but we must start somewhere.

What may become overwhelming for several small municipalities, we must begin to handle jointly. I am very pleased that the Social Democrats gave a small nod that this will happen.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I have read the Left Party's follow-up motion. It is actually a copy of the National Audit Office's recommendations which you have then, perhaps a bit lazily, turned into your own proposals for announcements.

I requested the floor to ask the following questions to Birger Lahti: Does the Left Party want to nationalize the municipal water network? Does the Left Party want to weaken municipal self-government?

It was an example here in the speaker's chair of a municipality that misuses the opportunity with the tax and uses it for other things. It is, of course, inappropriate. The voters have the opportunity in the election campaign to vote out that government if they are dissatisfied with it or to vote it in again if they are satisfied with it.

It is clear that there are challenges for smaller municipalities, absolutely. We can, for example, look at Ockelbo in my constituency. It seems almost impossible for a small municipality to renovate the water network. Just as Birger Lahti said, large state grants were once given in the world.

At the same time, it is an important principle that the municipalities have municipal self-government. That is something the municipal residents should consider. Is a new hockey hall more important, or is it more important to renovate the water and sewage network?

Unfortunately, there have been cases – not least in Norrbotten, where they build large, fine bathhouses with billion-kronor costs as a result – where such things have been prioritized instead of renovating the water and sewage network.

It is a fundamental function for a municipality to ensure that, just as the Social Democrats said, clean water comes out of the tap. There can be no ideological difference regarding that.

My question is: Does the Left Party want to nationalize the municipal water and sewage network which is currently operated by the municipalities, or do you want to weaken municipal self-government in that area?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Beckman, for the question!

I can guarantee that in any case, I do not want to privatize the water and sewage service. Many bourgeois parties would do anything to sell out everything that is public. We can well start there.

There is a difference in any case. If one believes that people will move to a municipality because it has, in any case, renovated its water and sewage pipes, one will fail.

This is a consequence of losing people, regardless of the color of the governments. We can certainly agree on that. Small municipalities that lose people try to keep themselves above water. They already have 6 or 7 kronor more in taxes than in some wealthy municipalities outside Stockholm. In that case, it is not so easy to make those trade-offs.

There is an expensive swimming pool in Kiruna. I will not take responsibility for that. I believe there are many others who might be in the shit. They were simply cheated.

It was asked if we would like to nationalize. No. But the state has a role in making the whole country hold together. There is much to do there. This government has definitely shown that one uses the countryside and northern Sweden as a colony, as has always been done. One does not move a millimeter to approach a state responsibility.

They wanted to force people to move away from the municipalities, and they wanted to force the opening of a mine. What one cannot do with kindness, one does with force. It is somewhat typical of what this government is trying to drive. But it is not our line.

We do not want to nationalize. Municipalities shall have their autonomy. But those municipalities that do not manage it need help.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! As someone born and raised in Boden in Norrbotten, I am proud of the Moderate-led government. I am proud that my 85-year-old parents-in-law in Boden can afford to fuel their car. I am proud that they can afford to drive in Norrbotten with a fuel price that is half the price compared to when Vänsterpartiet gave its support to the Social Democrats. I and the Moderaterna have nothing to be ashamed of. We are Sweden's rural party.

It is still good that the Left Party is now speaking about not wanting to nationalize the municipal water network. It is a clear and distinct message. I hope that the Social Democrats also stick to that line. Municipal self-government is important. It is important that our local politicians prioritize what is the municipalities' core task, ensuring that the water network functions.

Then we have a problem with the fact that the fees are very different, because they are. Svenskt Vatten has shown that there is a very large difference in different fees between different municipalities. So it will certainly always be that way. A large municipality has economies of scale.

I have also seen how a joint company has been formed in Gästrikland, which Vänsterpartiet is apparently opposed to now, where five municipalities work together on these issues. This will, among other things, result in the fees being equalized.

The residents of the metropolitan municipality will, in some sense, be subsidizing the fees for smaller municipalities. It is certainly excellent that municipalities cooperate and find solutions for that.

The maintenance debt for the water and sewage network is upwards of 800 billion because it has been mismanaged for many years under different governments, and the municipalities have not prioritized this issue. I think that is deeply unfortunate. It will, however, be interesting to see how much money Vänsterpartiet can allocate in its budget to support these municipalities – or if it is the case that the municipalities themselves must take greater responsibility by, for example, urging residents to have individual sewage systems instead of municipal ones. That works perfectly well.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Beckman, for this exchange of remarks!

I am very happy if Beckman's parents think that everything has been fixed when they get to refuel cheaper. However, there are many other things that many, even in Boden, say are not working. This is connected to how one prioritizes their money.

That you lower taxes for the richest and that you have the rot- and rut-deductions where billions flow out, you have no problems with. You can support small municipalities and steamroll them with compulsion. It could be about a mine – which I am not actually against. I think mines are needed, and it is many times a matter of survival for my rural district. But this government's view on citizen dialogue and the municipalities' self-governance, which the member was proud of, is being eroded in many respects.

I have absolutely nothing against corporatizing water and sewage in several municipalities so that the municipalities own this, as long as it is socially owned and one has common goals to make it cheaper. It is very good.

I can only say that we have different views on what is important in society. If it is just about refueling one's car more cheaply, the Moderaterna have gotten what they wanted, but I want a society that holds together. That is where our parties differ, and that is what I am happy about.

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

Mats Hellhoff (SD)

Madam Speaker! The report concerns the National Audit Office's report. I would initially like to move for the approval of the report.

The National Audit Office directs quite extensive criticism towards the government's governance and towards the relevant authorities' supervision and efforts regarding the municipalities' responsibility to provide public water services. I share the National Audit Office's view in many respects. I note that even the government largely agrees with the National Audit Office's description of the problems and considers that the measures proposed by the National Audit Office are well-motivated.

Through the Water Services Act, the state has delegated the responsibility for providing public water services to the municipalities. But the state still has the responsibility for both legislation and the overall governance. How the government and the state as a whole choose to govern naturally affects the municipalities' priorities.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review shows that the state, despite known deficiencies in the municipalities' maintenance and renewal of the existing water and sewage infrastructure, has primarily directed and focused its efforts on connecting more households to the public water services. In that respect, we have noted and criticized that some municipalities forcibly connect properties to the municipal network even though the properties have a well-functioning water supply and a well-functioning sewage system. The connections occur at great costs for the individual property owner – sometimes so great that the property owner has been forced to sell their property as the connection costs are far too high.

The National Audit Office assesses that the state's efforts towards the municipalities have not taken into sufficient account, or acted upon, the long-term risks that lack of maintenance and renewal entails. The National Audit Office further states that the state's efforts regarding public water services involve authorities within the fields of food, environment, and social planning, and that several of the authorities have expressed a need for further and closer cooperation.

Madam Speaker! Although the authorities have a responsibility to ensure themselves that the cooperation they need takes place, the Swedish National Audit Office argues that the cross-sectoral nature of the area, with shared responsibility among many authorities, can justify special governance towards a more formalized cooperation.

The Va-readiness investigation has been tasked with reviewing the regulatory framework and distribution of responsibilities and, if necessary, proposing changes to ensure a robust and continuous delivery of water services. The Government believes that the investigation contains proposals that have several close points of contact with the National Audit Office's recommendations.

I also share the Riksrevisionen's view that the government should be recommended to task the relevant authorities to deepen their cooperation in matters related to public water services and the Water Services Act. This is also presented in the Va-beredskapsutredningen. I consider, however, that cooperation should be further formalized than it is today and than what is proposed.

One aspect that is not mentioned in the Swedish National Audit Office's report and that other reports and investigations have only touched upon is the security of our water facilities. When one can stop the drinking water supply in an urban area simply by breaking a padlock, it shows that there is much left to do within the area of security.

In the Riksrevisionen's report and the government's communication, some of the actors responsible for water services are mentioned. Additionally, the Geological Survey of Sweden, SMHI, MSB, Jordbruksverket, and Skogsstyrelsen can also be mentioned. There are probably additional actors with greater or lesser responsibility for water services that complement or overlap the responsibility of other actors. I mean that this speaks even more strongly for the fact that cooperation on water services should be formalized in a special coordinating function.

With this said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Water is a prerequisite for life, and clean water is a prerequisite for health. We have seen horrific examples of when people have had to release sewage – as we have heard earlier here in the chamber – and people have actually been affected by stomach illnesses and parasites and other things. That is where we do not want to end up. Water is also a prerequisite for food production and for our societies in general.

At the same time as water is the fundamental prerequisite for life, it is becoming increasingly subject to pressure. As the Social Democrats have pointed out, we have climate change which causes droughts and floods. This also puts pressure on the water – both regarding the availability of water and regarding the sewage systems, where enormous masses of water flow down during short periods. We also have an uncertain situation in the world around us that puts pressure. There, we need to work more on preparedness linked to water issues and ensure that there are deliveries even if we have a crisis.

For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the National Audit Office has turned the spotlight on just water and sewage issues. It may sound technical and boring, but it is fundamental and important.

The National Audit Office has broadly concluded that the government needs to work more and better with this and implement the legislation in a better way. It is in many respects a municipal responsibility, but the state also needs to be there with frameworks and to provide support.

There are a few things that have been criticized in broad terms. One is that there has been a lot of focus on expansion and thus lost the maintenance and renewal. Large parts of our pipes are very old today. It has been several decades since they were built out, and one has not focused on the maintenance to a sufficient degree.

Various proposals and investigations have been submitted in this area, but they have not been translated into actions by the government. This has been met with passivity – now I am talking about this mandate period, not previous ones.

The state supervision could be much more effective. The National Audit Office highlights that the powers are not sufficient, but I would say it is about the cost-recovery rate. The supervision fees that are collected are not enough to carry out the supervision visits. That is when one runs on reports and becomes reactive instead of conducting supervision where it is actually needed from an environmental perspective. It then results in an enormous financing debt to renew and maintain our power grids.

In broad terms, we believe that the government needs to show decisiveness and meet the recommendations. Miljöpartiet considers, regarding the frameworks and the state's responsibility, that we should legislate that the municipalities must decide on a direction for the maintenance. The state should not say exactly how it should be done, but the issue should be put on the municipal agenda.

Regarding the supervision, the powers must be expanded. Furthermore, there must be sufficient resources to conduct good supervision. We must review what the environmental fee looks like so that it becomes possible to a greater extent to work with funds for future maintenance. It must not become so erratic, as it often is today. I was chairman of the technical committee in Järfälla, and it was a lot of tinkering to get the fee to jump back and forth so that the legislation would be upheld. More long-term thinking was needed so that it is possible to fund for future maintenance, so that there are no such sudden jumps that are felt in people's wallets.

We also think that one must consider what the climate changes lead to, for example floods. We must look at the question of a specific stormwater fee. Before the water enters the overloaded pipes, the water must be infiltrated into the ground. We think that one can legislate on a green space factor. The open stormwater solutions contribute a lot to public health and a beautiful urban environment. It is therefore a question of a combination of green spaces, stormwater ponds, and pipes. Those responsible for the roads, the road authorities, also need to take their responsibility to contribute to the financing of the management of the stormwater.

Furthermore, we have the economic issues. Vänsterpartiet has raised the question of how we handle the rural areas and the small communities. It is important that the state takes a financial responsibility, for example by looking at loan guarantees and how one can facilitate cooperation for municipalities. A small municipality can cooperate with several municipalities to address the issue.

Then I want to throw in that we also need to look a bit upstream, that we are going to work with water efficiency. How can we reduce water consumption? When building new, one can utilize different types of innovative solutions to reduce water consumption. These questions we also need to work with.

Let me summarize. Water is a prerequisite for all life and for good health, and we must move away from passivity and show initiative. If you are curious about the green version of initiative, you are very welcome to read our motion on a water system for the present and the future. There are many good proposals there.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 5.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Committee on Civil Affairs is debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on access to municipal water and sewage. I begin by moving to approve the proposal in the report.

Madam Speaker! This is an important report from the Swedish National Audit Office which shows that there are deficiencies in the state's governance and management regarding how the municipalities handle the area. It is a fact.

The Swedish National Audit Office has also presented a previously highlighted report concerning how municipalities set tariffs. I remember when the Committee on Civil Affairs met the then outgoing Auditor General, whom I happened to end up sitting next to at the dinner. She told us that it was one of the reports that the Swedish National Audit Office had received the most attention for from the public. Agitated citizens from all over Sweden contacted the Swedish National Audit Office and spoke about how the municipalities acted against individual property owners to forcibly connect them to municipal water and sewage networks.

The only criticism I have of the report is actually that the Swedish National Audit Office has not highlighted the issue of how the municipalities are acting. It is written in the report that the municipalities focus heavily on expanding the municipal water and sewage network, and it also appears there that the municipalities seem to have forgotten that one must maintain what already exists. A private property owner would never act as poorly on their own property as many municipalities have done when they have simply neglected the maintenance. That is why the maintenance debt has arisen. Had this been managed every year, we would not have ended up in this situation.

But it can also be as simple, as I said in an exchange with the Social Democrats, that the voters have demanded new sports halls instead of such a core municipal task as ensuring that water and sewage work. I am completely convinced that among us in the eight parties there is no difference whatsoever in that issue: When we turn on the water tap, clean and fresh water must come out. There can be no ideological difference in that.

Then there is a question that the Swedish National Audit Office does not address but which I raised in an exchange of remarks, namely the drainage of the municipal water and sewage network.

In the local newspaper Arbetarbladet, we have been able to read about how Sandviken municipality is pumping sewage straight out into Storsjön. We have seen videos on Facebook where the local activist Anders Broman in Järbo has posted videos showing how one pumps sewage straight out into streams. So that must not be allowed, but that is Sweden – Sandviken – 2025.

Questions regarding drainage are a municipal responsibility. We Moderates absolutely believe that it is a municipal responsibility. We do not think that the state should nationalize the municipal water and sewage network. That would be completely unreasonable. I am glad that the Left Party distanced itself from that view. There are organizations that are pushing for a uniform national water fee in Sweden. Svenskt Vatten has put forward that.

Yesterday, the government's Egnahemskommissionär Stefan Attefall wrote in DN Debatt. The headline in Dagens Nyheter is as follows: Soaring fees hit small house construction. Stefan Attefall notes that in many municipalities, the fees are skyrocketing because there are no incentives for the municipalities to keep the fees down – no brake. So, naturally, it cannot continue. Then he presents proposals for solutions.

Everything is not pitch black, even if it might sound that way in a debate like this. We Moderates in the Committee on Civil Affairs visited Coca-Cola a few weeks ago. At that time, those we met told us that they can purify one and a half million liters of water per day. If something were to happen to the municipal water network, they, as a private company, have the possibility to purify one and a half million liters of water per day. But they have a bit of difficulty getting in contact with the state, the authorities, and therefore they wonder how they should proceed since they could be a very great backup for the municipalities.

I do not share the Left Party's portrayal of private companies as being evil. On the contrary, it is absolutely fantastic that someone says they can help to purify water if it were needed. There are surely more facilities around Sweden that could act in a similar way. Now that, in terms of civil defense, an inventory is being made of how to solve, among other things, the water issue, I hope that MSB and others are inventorying the private companies. Coca-Cola is surely not alone in having its own treatment plant, but there are surely more beverage manufacturers that can do such a thing.

The Government agrees with many of the National Audit Office's positions and recommendations. We must also be aware, just as I said in my exchange with the Social Democrats, that when the National Audit Office writes "the government," it means both S-led governments and Moderate-led governments. This question has existed for a long time.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Beckman for the speech.

The members of the committee raised the issue of overflow several times. An important thing to move away from the need to perform overflows is to ensure that enormous amounts of rainwater do not enter the pipes and into the treatment plants, that is, that the treatment plants do not have the capacity to receive the amount of water. To handle the issue, one must work properly with climate adaptation and ensure that there are green spaces and areas that can be infiltrated.

But the government, with its policy, has completely undermined the work on climate adaptation. You have removed money and removed support for the county administrative boards. On the news a few days ago, I saw that there are almost no left at the county administrative board who work with climate adaptation. How does that add up?

It seems to be an important issue for the member. But why, in that case, does the government not bring forward the work on better climate adaptation?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I am passionate about local self-government. Sometimes one could almost believe that I am a member of the Centre Party. Before they became the Stureplan Centre, they were for local self-government.

It is exactly the same thing when it comes to these issues. There is nothing preventing Gävle municipality from climate-adapting its own municipality. There were deficiencies in the S-led Gävle municipality, where Miljöpartiet unfortunately is part of the government. The County Administrative Board had alerted and warned that there were road corridors that could cause chaos if there was heavy rainfall. They had warned that the flushing of the municipal water and sewage network was not being managed. A company in Gävle called Jannes Slam- och Spolservice performed the preventive maintenance. That was scaled back for reasons of savings.

It had catastrophic consequences in Gävle when the thousand-year rain came. So far, it has cost the tax collective in Gävle 1.3 billion. Some of it may be covered by insurance.

There is nothing that prevents a single municipality from working with climate adaptation. There are no deficiencies in the legislation, nothing that prevents it at all.

The Green Party says that since the municipalities are managing this so poorly, the state should intervene with either a stricter regulatory framework or stricter governance. That can, of course, be done. The Green Party is free to do that in a potential government in 50 years.

But if one believes in local self-government, it also applies to local responsibility. And the Moderaterna believe in the municipalities' accountability.

I agree with the National Audit Office's criticism that it would have been good if the County Administrative Board had a clearer mandate when it comes to those municipalities that obviously do not behave, for example Gävle. They had pointed out for three years in a row that Gävle mismanaged itself, but they might have had a sharper tool. But then, on the other hand, we arrive at municipal self-government again. Do we want to give the state power at the expense of the municipalities?

In Gävle's case, the County Administrative Board had warned for three consecutive years about the consequences of the mismanagement of, among other things, green spaces.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Of course, municipal self-government is important. But if one were to take that reasoning to an extreme, one could discard all legislation altogether and all forms of state support. I do not believe that even Member Beckman wants to end up there.

When it comes to climate adaptation, even if one has municipal self-government, one can of course work with different types of investment support in order to be able to adapt to the climate. It is also incredibly important that the county administrative boards produce knowledge bases and, for example, flood mapping. It is not always something that a municipality has the possibility to do on its own. It is a knowledge-building activity where different types of GIS layers are produced, which give the municipalities the conditions to work in a good way. These parts are fully compatible with municipal self-government.

But from Member Beckman, I still hear a no to climate adaptation; we are going to proceed with municipal self-government. Therefore, it is completely unimportant.

I still have not received any answer on how the member wants to work with climate adaptation, on how to reduce the risk of flooding, or on how to ensure that there are no overflows and that the water remains clean. I lack answers on that.

I am convinced that it is possible to have a good balance between state responsibility and municipal responsibility. If one were to push the extremes extra far, one could tear down the entire Environmental Code. That would have incredibly negative consequences for the environment, health, and water.

I repeat my question: What does the member want to do to strengthen climate adaptation in Sweden?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! When Miljöpartiet sat in government, a proposition was submitted, 2021/22:208, titled Vägar till hållbara vattentjänster. The government at that time stated there that they did not want to provide detailed provisions, but instead wrote that the content could be adapted according to own needs and conditions.

A branch of us politicians probably thinks that the municipalities should take a very large responsibility. I regret that, for example, Gävle did not do so. It became a complete catastrophe for the villa owners in Fridhem who had their basements filled with water because of something they actually could not influence, because the municipality had mismanaged its urban planning. That is why these issues are so important.

I have been to Florida quite often. Now we have sold our apartment there, but the first time I came there, I reacted to the fact that the suburbs have large areas with something that looks like concrete bunkers. They also have wide and large runoff from the roads. I thought: Oh, is this needed? Then the rain came. It rains very often in Florida. Then I saw how the dams filled up.

How could it work there, without the basements flooding and without it becoming a catastrophe? Well, they have urban planning. They know that it rains and perform ordinary urban planning which involves them creating or enabling water reservoirs.

Part of the municipalities' core mission is to ensure that this activity functions. It is incredibly important for the citizens. But I also believe that the citizens should consider whether it is more important to have a swimming pool for a billion or to ensure that core activities such as water and sewage function.

I regret that there has been a witch hunt against individual sewers instead of ensuring that the municipal water and sewage network functions. Unfortunately, this continues in many municipalities. I receive emails from property owners across Sweden who feel deeply affected by being compulsorily connected.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Member Beckman! I must reply because the member mentioned that the Left Party would be against private enterprise. I must hear, so that it is not left unsaid, from where the member gets such indications or vibes. I said nothing at all in my speech about being against private enterprise or private actors.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Wouldn't the Left Party be against private companies? It is enough to look at your history, Birger Lahti. It is enough to hear what you say in political gatherings all over Sweden. It is enough to hear what you say here in the Riksdag about how you want to kill the private welfare company sector. Member Birger Lahti must have listened to his party leader at some point, for example in a party leader debate. It must have happened.

But I am glad that Birger Lahti belongs to the wing of the Left Party that is not against private companies. That is fantastically good. I believe the member is active in the Committee on Enterprise. Then one surely meets both entrepreneurs and business organizations and discovers that they are not evil themselves.

I myself am proud, happy and satisfied that we have private companies in Sweden. It is that which finances our desired welfare. I become incredibly proud when we visit Coca-Cola and they say that they can produce 1.5 million liters of pure water per day and could help out if the municipal water network goes down. It is fantastically good and something to be proud of. I think we should encourage entrepreneurs. We should be proud of the Swedish corporate sector.

I really hope that Vänsterpartiet does not get any influence whatsoever, indirectly or directly, over a government. It would be a catastrophe for Swedish business.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Beckman, for many opinions!

I want to give the member a tip. We have a motion on small businesses and politics. Read it! Read our motion on rural areas and industry! An honest member can at least take something else into consideration than just throwing out masses of opinions that have no bearing whatsoever.

I have, throughout my entire professional life, for 30 years, worked in the forest with business owners, haulage owners, and entrepreneurs. My son is an entrepreneur. To claim that we would be against small businesses or entrepreneurship is nonsense. But one can survive anything from this rostrum. One can lie and come up with anything and survive that too.

I am glad that I at least got to say it and that I can give the member some tips on what he can read to get an idea of what Vänsterpartiet stands for. I hope that the members from all the other parties also read them. Then we can have a sensible debate on at least how we view the companies.

Then I stand up for the fact that there are some socially important functions where greedy owners of companies do not fit. Our society must hold together. If it is only profit-seeking that one is after, one does not fit everywhere – not in healthcare, school, and other socially important functions. People pay taxes and expect the country to hold together. But I have seen the motions that the Moderaterna have written. They want to privatize almost everything, and that has been the case for a long time. I am glad that we do not agree on those things.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is fantastic with Birger Lahti's rhetoric: We in the Left Party are for entrepreneurs and small business owners. But greedy entrepreneurs we are against. We are against ICA traders. We are against private grocery stores. We are against private independent schools. We are against private welfare. We are against route deductions and the companies in the home care sector. The construction companies – yes, I don't know if they are allowed to make money or not.

No, Birger Lahti – one cannot be for entrepreneurship and be against profits. One cannot be for entrepreneurship and think that Vänsterpartiet should sit here in Stockholm and decide which industries and companies are allowed to exist. It is a rhetoric that simply does not add up. But I want to give Birger Lahti credit on one point: There is a fantastically large difference between Moderaterna and Vänsterpartiet regarding the view on companies.

I want to extend a warm thanks to Sveriges företagare for your existence. Every day you contribute to creating prosperity in Sweden. Every day you contribute to creating tax revenues that we politicians can distribute. A big, warm thank you to Sveriges företagare!

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report in its entirety.

Water and sewage are not just a public service. For you as an individual property owner, it is a critical infrastructure that affects health, economy, property value, and quality of life. Water and sewage is not something the municipality manages, but your life's most important system. A small amount of maintenance today saves hundreds of thousands of kronor and protects your family's health tomorrow. Sometimes one would wish that the municipalities had heard that and acted accordingly.

We are talking about a National Audit Office report that has been delivered and which we will, in one way or another, have to provide an answer to. The audit covers various sub-issues. One of the sub-issues is: Is the government's governance effective in relation to the municipalities and their responsibility to provide public water services?

It is just so – that providing public water services is a great responsibility that the municipalities have. We all probably think in one way or another that municipal self-government means that we should not go in and dig into this all too much. But perhaps it is the case that we have let municipal self-government rule all too much. We have not conducted any control or follow-up. We have not taken measures when we have seen that it actually does not work – regardless of which government has been in power, I want to assert.

We have seen that the reinvestments are not sufficient for what is to function all around in the whole of Sweden. We have seen that forced connections are being made to finance reinvestments at new points. We do not think that is good.

We have seen that cost increases are occurring in all municipalities. Birger Lahti from Vänsterpartiet reported a cost increase of 70 percent. That sounds very high to me, but I believe him when he says it. In many of the municipalities in my home county, there is a 20 percent increase. But already now, people are talking about that both next year and the year after that, there will also be a 20 percent increase. I actually believe that the cost for the individual for these services has been far too small for us to be satisfied and happy and see that it works moving forward.

Then the question is: Have we let the municipalities go too far? Yes, that is what the Swedish National Audit Office's report actually says we have done. In its response, the government mentions the directives to authorities that have been given during 2025. One is to report back on which controls have been made and which evaluations are being made and find a way forward, because the government does not think this is good.

It is probably no one who is surprised by the report's results. Anyone who says they are must have hidden under a stone somewhere. The final result of the National Audit Office's report is that we must have more control over what the municipalities do and more cooperation between the state and the municipalities, and that is quite obvious. I think the National Audit Office's report shows what Svenskt Vatten has emphasized for quite many years and what we have said from this rostrum: We need to engage from the state level so that the municipality can manage its commitment, regardless of whether it is a large or a small municipality.

We see, however, all around Sweden that there are municipalities taking measures, making plans and investing in their water and sewage networks. They deserve praise, I think. We must also remember this when we take measures – there are actually municipalities that function very well in this regard, and we can take them as examples that it actually works.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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