Response to interpellations 2023/24:690 and 691 on mandatory connection to municipal sewage systems

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! [Name] has asked me when I and the government will return to the Riksdag with measures that fulfill the relevant environmental and health protection requirements based on the announcement the Riksdag directed to the previous government regarding not mandatorily connecting properties to the sewage system. Roger Hedlund has also asked me what initiatives I can take so that the municipalities do not mandatorily connect property owners to an already overloaded sewage system and thereby risk people's health and the environment in a situation similar to that in Sandviken municipality. Mikael Eskilandersson has asked me when I and the government will handle the announcement and ensure that sewage systems that fulfill environmental and health requirements in normal cases shall not be forced into a municipal sewage system.

I want to start by saying that I am aware that a threat of mandatory connection causes great concern for individual property owners, as the connection fee can be a burdensome expense.

The municipality is, according to the Act on Public Water Services, obliged to arrange water supply or sewage in a larger context if necessary with regard to the protection of human health and the environment. This obligation sometimes entails difficult trade-offs for a municipality in cases where there are differing views between individuals and a municipality. For the individual property owner, the opposite situation can also apply, that is, a desire to connect to a municipal water and sewage network where it is not possible.

By the expression "in a larger context" is meant a collective settlement with 20 to 30 properties, but sometimes also fewer. The decisive factor in these cases is that there is a need to protect human health and the environment. Previously, property owners had very little opportunity to influence decisions, which the government wanted to change. With the legislative amendment in Section 6 of the Act on Public Water Services that entered into force on 1 January 2023, special consideration shall be taken of the conditions to meet the need through an individual sewage system that can be accepted with regard to the protection of human health and the environment.

From the turn of the year, the municipalities must also have current water service plans that report on the municipalities' long-term planning of how the need for water services shall be met. The plans shall have been preceded by a so-called strategic environmental assessment in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Environmental Code, which, among other things, means that the different alternatives shall be weighed against each other and that the effects shall be assessed. The public shall also be given the opportunity to submit comments on the municipalities' plans, and the municipalities shall consult with those property owners who are assumed to have a significant interest in the plan - this is because there may be different conceivable possibilities to solve the water or sewage issue. The municipalities shall take into account the comments that are received and report how they have been considered. The requirements for analysis and dialogue that Mikael Eskilandersson requests in his interpellation are therefore already in place.

In summary, I want to say that the mandatory requirement for water service plans is expected to increase transparency regarding the municipalities' plans for expansion and provide greater opportunities for property owners to influence decisions at an early stage regarding which properties shall be included in new water and sewage areas. It has been just over a year since the legislative change took effect regarding that special consideration shall be taken of the conditions for meeting the need through individual facilities. The legislative change regarding water and sewage plans has had a real effect fully for less than half a year. The Government is closely following the outcome of this legislative change.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Romina Pourmokhtari very much for the answer to my interpellation. The question of connections to the municipal water and sewage system is very significant for individual persons and individual households, but also from the overall perspective in society. It affects in many ways and ways how our society has the opportunity to develop.

The Act on Public Water Services is very rigid, even though much has been done on the issue since it began to be properly debated here in the Riksdag and out in the public. The Act entails far-reaching obligations for municipalities to provide water and sewage systems in an area even if there are only a few residential houses. This entails far-reaching problems for both municipalities and individual households. It also hinders housing development, because the expansion of more residential areas in a municipality becomes costly both for the municipality and for the individual households. In larger residential areas, it usually becomes a natural solution, as the economics become completely different. But for individual households in areas where there may even be fewer than 20 residential houses, as the Minister of State points out in his answer, it naturally entails large costs. So we cannot have that.

In this issue, the previous government was satisfied for many years, but there is an announcement from the Riksdag. We naturally expect that the new government that has taken office acts in such a way that we get a real change for the households affected by this legislation.

The requirements that the municipalities plan for long-term expansion of water and sewage systems is something that the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed for in opposition for a very long time. This also applies to the requirements for the possibility to conduct consultations. The municipalities shall consider what is raised in the consultations and report why they choose to act as they do based on the consultation procedures. These are two good proposals that the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed and which have now been implemented, which we are very happy about. But there are a number of additional measures that we need to get through in this issue.

That municipalities should not be forced to expand water and sewage pipes and systems at new developments is something we must address. That compulsion should not need to exist. There should be greater possibility than today for other variants when expanding residential areas. There is a clear example, Mr. Speaker, in Norrbro in Sandviken Municipality. There, new households are forcibly connected to an already overloaded system, despite the fact that there is an approved and good solution today in the municipality. This is a clear example that the legislation that exists today in this area is not sufficient; people are left without legal recourse and helpless in such a situation today. There, we need to establish new legislation.

Mr. Speaker! I will return to more problems in this area in my next contribution, as my speaking time has expired.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must say that I am deeply concerned by the non-answer that Romina Pourmokhtari gives regarding the announcement that the Riksdag directed to the government to prevent functioning sewers from being forcibly connected.

In the Committee on Civil Affairs, where we handle issues regarding water and sewage, we have been in agreement, including the Liberals, that legislation is needed that protects property owners in a better way. As recently as May 2 of this year, that is just a few weeks ago, the Committee on Civil Affairs' statement to the Committee on the Constitution was adjusted. There it is stated both that the announcement regarding mandatory connections of properties to the water and sewage network has not been treated and that it shall now be prioritized. The Committee on Civil Affairs was unanimous in this statement. Some other older announcements would also be prioritized by the government. Even Romina Pourmokhtari's own party, the Liberals, has therefore been pushing to prioritize this announcement.

The previous measures that the Minister refers to were, in our view in the Committee on Civil Affairs, not sufficient to protect property owners and functioning facilities from mandatory connections. This was already established when the bill *Vägar till hållbara vattentjänster* was handled by the committee.

Mr. Speaker! I intended to read the text from the government regarding this specific announcement: The Riksdag announced in the report 2020/21:CU14 for the government that which the committee stated regarding mandatory connections to the municipal water network, which was approved by the Riksdag. In the bill Paths to Sustainable Water Services, the government proposed that special consideration should be taken of the conditions to ensure the need for a water service through a private facility. The government stated that the proposal fulfills the Riksdag's announcement to the extent that is appropriate considering the municipality's fundamental responsibility to arrange water services, and that the announcement was thus finalized.

The Riksdag decided in accordance with the government's bill on a more flexible needs assessment. According to the Riksdag, this was a step in the direction of fulfilling the announcement, but not sufficient to consider it as finalized. The item therefore remains open. The matter will be further prepared within the Government Offices. The item is not finalized.

When I listen to Romina Pourmokhtari now, I cannot help but wonder how the minister views the announcements from the Riksdag. In what way will Romina Pourmokhtari prioritize the announcement regarding mandatory connections? From the answer I have listened to, I cannot actually see that it is being prioritized at all.

Instead, one gets the feeling that the government considers it to be essentially already finalized based on the legislative proposals that exist. Again: When can we expect to see a legislative proposal that lives up to the announcement that we all stand behind in the Committee on Civil Affairs?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very important interpellations that Roger Hedlund and Mikael Eskilandersson are posing. Now, one must not display things in the speaker's chair, because then I will receive a reprimand from Madam Speaker. I have the latest issue of the magazine Villaägaren lying in front of me. It is the membership magazine of Villaägarnas Riksförbund which arrived the other day. There, five pages deal with mandatory connections to municipal water.

I have had reason to follow how precisely Sandviken municipality has acted towards property owners. I can only say that it is deplorable. It is exactly as I said in the water debate we had here in the Riksdag some months ago. I stated that a lex Sandviken may be needed.

The municipalities are not taking into account what is the national policy. I, unlike Mikael Eskilandersson, think that the Minister is clear in her answer when she says that the municipalities shall take into account the views that come in and report how they have been considered. That is the national policy.

It is exactly as Mikael Eskilandersson says. The Tidö parties are in complete agreement. The problem is reality. One can look at the nonchalant and arrogant way that Sandviken Municipality acts, and unfortunately not just Sandviken Municipality. There are more municipalities that have not adopted the new legislation.

I have personally attended two different meetings in Järbo with the property owners in Norrbro. There, representatives from the municipality come and say: This is how it is, and this is how it is going to be. It is neither consultation nor consensus at all.

Just when it comes to Sandviken, it is a bit embarrassing. Here, there are functioning individual sewage systems. At the same time, the municipality has pumped out hundreds of thousands of liters of sewage water straight out into Storsjön, which Arbetarbladet has written about. It has gone straight out into Storsjön. I have a film from Järbo where they have pumped sewage water straight out into a river. It is appalling.

I understand that Owe Eng says the following in the newspaper Villaägaren: During the summer when the county was hit by heavy rainfalls, and the municipal facilities had to discharge millions of liters of untreated wastewater, our facilities functioned as usual. We are proud of our facilities and the responsibility we take to keep them in good condition, says Owe Eng, who lives in the village and is one of the conveners.

He continues by saying: The municipality accuses the residents of having substandard water and sewage facilities. The problem is just that no one has inspected them. The municipality simply says: This doesn't work. I believe the property owners would have had greater respect if each facility had been inventoried individually.

The announcement simplifies it a bit. The municipality must be able to prove via measurement, investigation, or something else that it truly is an inadequate water and sewage facility. Looking at how the municipalities have responded to the newspaper Villaägaren, it is a rather nonchalant response. They simply state: We do as we see fit.

In that way, there is a difference between the will and ambition of the government and the Tidö parties and how the municipalities act. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon. Jonathan Lindgren, who is a social policy expert at Villaägarna, writes in a column in Villaägaren that unfortunately, it works that way in many different municipalities.

It is very pleasing and good that the government follows the outcome of the legislative change closely. I believe there are many property owners out there who perhaps expect the municipalities to adopt the new legislation, because that is where the responsibility lies. We have municipal self-government.

Just as I said in the debate: If the municipalities cannot manage the local self-government and these issues, we unfortunately must tighten the legislation.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks also to Member Beckman, who has already accounted for some of the parts that I myself intended to highlight!

I want to start by saying that I am well aware of the threat that exists regarding forced connection and the concern it poses. I am out meeting people all the time who raise this concern with me and who speak about what the government can do to improve the situation.

Even I cannot comment on specific cases as a minister, but I can point out that the legislative change that has been implemented should mean that the situation that currently exists in Sandviken Municipality can be avoided.

I must then be even clearer in this speech that there is simply a regulation stating that the municipalities must have foresight in their water and sewage planning. The municipalities must consult with affected property owners, and the municipalities must consider alternative solutions.

One can, of course, be frustrated by individual remarks and discuss these. But it is nevertheless more important to see what we can do from the government's and the state's side to improve the situation.

The obligations that exist for the municipalities sometimes entail difficult trade-offs for a municipality. There may be different perceptions among individuals and a municipality. That can, of course, be understood. But there is reason to highlight that there is now a space to act in the way one considers appropriate from the municipality's side.

The municipality has an obligation to expand public water. That obligation only arises if there are environmental reasons or health reasons. This applies to the interpretation of what a larger context means. It applies to at least 20-30 houses, but in some cases fewer depending on local conditions. The law is interpreted such that there is, in principle, always a need to protect people's health and the environment if the development is part of a larger context.

I must once again mention that the government shares the view that the legislation previously has not to a sufficient extent set requirements for foresight. There has not been an obligation to assess whether individual solutions can provide equivalent environmental and health protection. That is what the statutory provisions in the Water Services Act aim to change.

If it is the case that these are not sufficient and that a major problem persists, the government will, of course, take note of that concern and criticism and review what further we can do. It is, at the very least, a task that is already underway. We are following the issue closely. It is not something we just write and claim, but it happens in several different ways.

For example, we have had a dialogue with Finland to learn about their legislation in the area and how it has functioned there. In Finland, there is a system where properties can, to a greater extent than in Sweden, be granted exemptions from connecting to a municipal water and sewage network. In Finland, Madam Speaker, the extent of exemptions in some cases has also caused difficulties for the water and sewage companies to plan and obtain cost coverage for prioritized water and sewage expansion. This has affected housing construction, and some municipalities have faced quite large economic problems.

Work is ongoing to review how we can improve the situation for all those affected by this issue. I can assure the members that I am favorably disposed to listening to whatever picture is raised regarding the problem, but also possible solutions and improvements to the situation so that we can make it bearable to live and reside in the entire country, also regarding sewage and water.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we see connections to overloaded systems. Despite the new legislation, households are forced to connect to overloaded systems even though there is no environmental benefit to it. In the current legislation, there is no possibility to counteract what is happening in Sandviken, and therefore the Minister needs to take necessary initiatives in the matter.

If one has a fully functioning system that is approved in every respect, the Sweden Democrats believe that municipalities should not be able to force one to connect to a water and sewage system. This applies regardless of whether we are talking about an overloaded system as in Sandviken or a newly installed water and sewage system that the municipalities are expanding. That form of compulsion should not exist; if one has their own system, it should suffice.

The situation we see today makes the residents feel helpless. It affects their finances very much. In less developed communities, it costs enormous amounts of money. In other cases, one might have a well-developed, newly installed system, and then one is hit twice financially: First, one has acquired a functioning system, and then one is forced to connect to the municipality's new system.

Here is new legislation that provides a long-term perspective on the issue, but it does not solve the problem here and now for those who are forced to connect to the municipality's water and sewage system.

Just as I mentioned earlier and as the Minister touched upon, this is also growth-threatening. It threatens the possibilities to expand more residential areas, because it can cost very much money for individuals but also for the municipalities. Where there are good places to expand residential areas, even if not in such a large extent regarding the number of households, the current legislation does not enable the municipalities to expand without the municipality, the taxpayers, and the individual households simultaneously incurring large costs.

The legislation also involves a form of retroactive perspective - one has acquired an approved system according to all forms of the law, but at a later point, perhaps shortly thereafter, one is forced to connect to a municipal water and sewage system which makes it very expensive. This form of retroactive application of a legislation on individual households, I do not think is okay.

My question is therefore: Why does the government not proceed with the question of both how we should handle the fact that households are being connected to already overloaded systems, and with protecting households that already have a functioning system from being forced to connect to a new municipal water and sewage system?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is not a question that only affects one place in Sweden; on the contrary, it is very many places that are affected. I come from Skåne, and there we have, for example, Höör where the newspaper even requested a statement from the minister, I want to remember. However, such a statement was not obtained.

In Höör municipality, the localities Jularp and Sjunnerup will be forcibly connected. After very harsh criticism, the municipality has now concluded that they can offer installment payments. That was, so to speak, the concession. Otherwise, the same applies as before, meaning that the properties will be forcibly connected and the households will have to pay very large amounts.

To reject the local and small-scale solutions that already exist without there actually being any obvious environmental gains is a problem, and it is obviously difficult to see any benefit in forcing people with functioning sewage systems to leave their houses and homes because they cannot afford the municipalities' extremely expensive connection fees and the additional labor costs. It is not just about the connection fee, but there are also major excavation works on the own plot that must be paid for. Then everything must be restored. Costs tend to often run away, and if one is not extremely well off, large loans must be taken out to cover the costs.

Furthermore, it is not only a waste of resources, but it is also bad for our preparedness. When countries end up in war or are subjected to attacks, water facilities are targets that are easily and quickly attacked. We have seen it in the world around us, and we should prepare for the worst even if we obviously hope for the best. Cutting off water and sewage is a simple way to lower people's will to fight, and for that very reason, it should be a priority to have small functioning units in more locations. Many municipalities, however, do exactly the opposite, and in that case, the legislation needs to be clear: No functioning sewage systems should be scrapped unnecessarily. Municipalities' systems for sewage are also rarely perfect. Being forced to connect to a defective or less efficient system is direct damage to the environment.

The concept of overflow does not even exist when it comes to individual sewers, but it is used frequently by our municipalities. Overflow of sewage water is common, especially during heavy rain or power outages. Overflow means in practice that water from the sewer is sent straight out into some watercourse or similar. "It may be unsuitable to swim immediately after heavy rains," says my municipality's responsible NSVA, Nordvästra Skånes Vatten och Avlopp, on its website. They also provide reassuring information that the sewage water is quickly dispersed over larger areas when overflow occurs.

According to Svenskt Vattens statistics on overflows, the proportion of wastewater that is discharged untreated is between 0.7 and 4.1 percent in the investigated treatment plants. They are therefore reporting the percentage of the water that arrives at the treatment plant for treatment. Based on the higher figure of 4.1 percent, it is therefore as much wastewater as would be released untreated if the entire treatment plant were removed for a period of two weeks. The lower figure of 0.7 percent corresponds to the wastewater that passes through during two and a half days.

The other municipal treatment plants lie somewhere between these figures, and thus it is normal for a treatment plant to discharge untreated water directly into nature without any treatment at all, corresponding to approximately one week's production or treatment.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The question is a very important question. I spoke with Owe Eng yesterday. He called me regarding the article and said that people from all over Sweden have contacted the residents outside Järbo. This is, therefore, something that is happening across all of Sweden.

I want to emphasize that the water and sewage issue is a municipal responsibility. How, then, have the municipalities managed this over the years? There are different figures, but the maintenance debt regarding the municipal water and sewage network is very high. There are figures pointing to 500 billion up to 800 billion. One can wonder how municipal politicians have prioritized when they have built up such a large maintenance debt.

One of the problems is that very many municipal water and sewage networks were built at approximately the same time, which means that all the leaks that are now occurring, both in sewers and in water pipes, do not occur by chance, but it is due to mismanagement on the part of the municipalities. It is clear that if one wants municipal self-government, which we all want, these issues must naturally be managed better.

I can, of course, understand the residents of Norrbro, who are outraged that they are to be forcibly connected at a cost of perhaps a quarter of a million, which is a lot of money to spend on a property, while hundreds of thousands of liters of sewage are pumped straight out into Storsjön or there are extensive water leaks in central Sandviken. I fully understand that they are very angry, and they are not alone in that.

I do, however, have confidence in this government, which takes the issue very seriously and will ensure that the legislation works. I believe the government's patience will be very short – if municipal politicians, whether they are in Sandviken or elsewhere, do not listen to the legislator's intention now, perhaps the legislation should be adjusted as soon as possible. But we have municipal self-government, so under today's applicable legislation, every municipality is free to listen to the residents.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Before the continued debate, I would like to remind that it is legislation we are debating and not the decisions of individual authorities. I am not saying this to any individual member, but I want us to generally remember that in the debate.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Even though we cannot speak about the specific cases, there are indeed reasons to discuss how the municipalities handle this issue, given that it is a local and municipal matter. It is difficult for the state to step in and make further decisions when we have just passed legislative changes that have been implemented and which mean that the situation that currently exists in, for example, Sandviken Municipality can be avoided. This naturally leads to a subsequent discussion on how it is that municipalities generally do not choose to consider alternative solutions, as the law now enables.

I do not know if the Sverigedemokraternas members have any other view regarding the issues of municipal self-government and how we should handle the balance, given that this is a municipal issue. Therefore, it becomes somewhat difficult from the government's side to clearly state that the minister needs to take initiative, when it concerns a municipal issue where there is room for the municipalities to make decisions on other solutions. It is simply a space to make decisions in a different way, which has been made possible by the government.

We are aware of this issue, and we know that it exists in many places around the country. I can personally mention as an example that I was recently in Norrtälje and spoke with voters. We then discussed the question of connection to the water network. It is an issue that would also burden that municipality's finances in a tough way.

This is, therefore, a question that is discussed at regular intervals. We are looking closely at how we can design the legislation in the best way. But I want to point out most sharply that there is indeed room for the municipalities to consider alternative solutions. If the municipalities choose not to do so, it will be difficult for the Minister to take initiative because we in Sweden have municipal self-government.

Madam Speaker! A very important part of this issue is the preparedness perspective. I am of the opinion that from a preparedness perspective, it is primarily important to secure access to drinking water and clean water for food supply, especially in rural areas. It is therefore very important to ensure that individual wells, water sources, and groundwater are protected.

In August 2022, the government decided that a special investigator should review the regulatory framework and distribution of responsibility and, if necessary, propose changes to increase preparedness to ensure a robust and continuous delivery of water services - what we call the Va-beredskapsutredningen (Water Preparedness Inquiry). The purpose of the assignment is, among other things, to strengthen the ability to deliver water services based on the new conditions resulting from a changing climate. The inquiry's assignment is to be completed by October 31 this year, and I look forward, not least, to taking part in the analysis and the various proposals that will come from the inquiry.

We know that individual property owners can be hit hard by their drinking water being contaminated by wastewater from adjacent properties. We know that there are examples where it has taken a very long time to determine the cause of an illness, after which it has been discovered that it concerns the access to clean drinking water. We also know that, if one does not have access to clean drinking water, it affects property prices negatively, and this is not always easy or cheap to remedy for the individual. There are, therefore, quite a few adjacent problems to take into account.

When it comes to the preparedness perspective, the government will, as stated, receive on October 31 this year the report from an investigation that has analyzed and looked at precisely the preparedness aspect when it comes to va.

I want, Madam Speaker, to conclude by pointing out once again that, in light of the legislative changes that have been made, there is room for the municipalities to consider alternative methods for implementing the measures. If this does not happen, it will be somewhat difficult for the Minister to take initiative because we have local self-government in Sweden.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the debate on this so important issue!

The Minister requested from individual members, parties, and others what measures could be implemented in this area. I think I have made some contributions in the debate, but I would also like to refer to the old investigation *Vägar till hållbara vattentjänster*, which contains a number of concrete and good proposals on how one could proceed.

What is good now is that we have secured the possibility for long-term planning from the municipalities' side. They are forced to do this in order to be able to report where the expansion of water and sewage systems will take place. It is very good that we also get a consultation where one is forced to discuss with the affected households, as well as legislation on that one shall consider if there are alternative systems.

These are good roads, but as we have said, we lack initiatives to counteract connecting to overloaded water systems. Here, the Minister mentions municipal self-government. I think it is a bit of a strange angle on the discussion because it has a significant environmental consequence when more households are connected to overloaded water and sewage systems. In that case, the government and the legislation must step in so that this cannot happen. Creative solutions on how we can legislate around this need to be reviewed. We cannot just leave the question and refer to the fact that municipal self-government applies. Then we get these consequences, which we have seen that the Social Democrats have contributed to in Sandviken municipality.

Finally, no one shall be forced to connect to a municipal water and sewage system during the expansion of such a system - point. This is a concrete proposal. No one shall have to connect, but it is something one may do voluntarily during an expansion.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Roger Hedlund gave a good account of our policy in this area.

I would like to mention that it is common for us members to receive emails and letters about matters that affect people particularly hard and are perceived as unfair. Just the question of mandatory connection to sewers is a common and recurring reason why people contact me.

The story is almost always the same. First, you have spent large sums to get a functioning sewage system on your property, hundreds of thousands of kronor that you have often been forced to borrow. After that, the municipality decides to expand its water and sewage network, and then requirements for mandatory connection come with an additional, very high cost.

For the properties that have a functioning sewage system, this is an enormous waste of resources and creates entirely unnecessary suffering for the vulnerable property owner, while the environmental benefit must be minimal. Most often, it even becomes a disadvantage for both the environment and the country's preparedness as a whole.

When it comes to this being a municipal issue, I completely agree that we should safeguard municipal self-government. But there is already governance via law in this area. I therefore do not consider it to be anything strange to introduce a clear right for property owners to opt out of connection when they have a well-functioning facility.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! There are many aspects of this issue that we can continue to discuss. I look forward to receiving an inquiry in October, and I look forward to reviewing, for example, the previous inquiry Roads to sustainable water services. All proposals are therefore welcomed.

We are looking at all possibilities to improve the situation. As it is now, it cannot continue. I want to urge the municipalities that decide on these issues to utilize the legislative changes that have been implemented. Unless we step in and regulate the law further, we must ensure that conservative and liberal parties gain the power to decide in more municipalities and act in a direction that safeguards the individual's right to have issues concerning sewage and water handled in a more appropriate manner.

We know that municipalities, among other things, need to have foresight in their water and sewage planning. They need to consult with affected property owners and consider alternative solutions. It is something one should take away, not least as a citizen, if one looks at this debate.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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