Requirements for municipal land survey authorities' case management systems

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have no reservations in this matter. However, we have a couple of things that we would like to say.

We fundamentally believe that common systems are good. They can contribute to keeping costs down, creating more uniformity, strengthening legal certainty, and increasing security for the state. But that does not mean that Lantmäteriet, once we have hammered out this decision, can do whatever they want and anything they want. There are important measures that we believe need to be taken.

It is important that the administrative activities throughout the country can be conducted efficiently, uniformly, in a legally secure manner, and securely. It is also important that the state and the municipalities have systems that work together and where information is handled in a secure manner.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to be clear about one thing: Lantmäteriet is not directly known for always functioning flawlessly – we can at least agree on that. For a long time, there has been criticism regarding processing times, lack of accessibility, and cases that drag on. I myself have received heaps of emails from people who are frustrated, and surely my colleagues in the Civil Affairs Committee have as well. I have met people in municipal land survey activities who feel great frustration. I have also met companies that are frustrated that processes take too long.

It is not strange that people are reacting, because Lantmäteriet is not just any agency. Lantmäteriet is an important part for society to actually function. Without a functioning Lantmäteriet, it becomes harder to build housing. Without a functioning Lantmäteriet, infrastructure projects are delayed. Without a functioning Lantmäteriet, real estate transactions, subdivisions, and land issues become more complicated.

It could be about a large company that wants to invest. It could be about a municipality that wants to plan for new housing, but it could also be about an ordinary person who wants to build a house or renovate a house, subdivide land, or clarify what applies to a property. Yes, it could even be about someone who wants to build a chicken coop and needs to know what actually applies. In that case, the authority must function.

Madam Speaker! It is against that background that we view a common system positively. A common case management system can contribute to better follow-up, greater uniformity, increased legal certainty, and better security of information from the state. But that work must also be done correctly. When the state sets requirements for municipal land survey authorities, they must also use the systems provided by the state Lantmäteriet. In that case, the state must also take responsibility for ensuring that the system works in practice. It must not become a system that is far too expensive, cumbersome, and difficult to use. It must not become a system where the municipalities have to bear the costs of poor state procurement. And it must not become a public IT project that sounds fantastic in theory but creates frustration in everyday life.

Madam Speaker! We know, unfortunately, that large public IT systems have not always been a success story. It often begins with promises of efficiency, that digitalization is good and that it is to be user-friendly. But then people are left standing there with a system that has cost enormous sums of money and yet is difficult to use.

I feel that frustration myself. The other day, I wanted to look at my son's grades. It took me a long time to find them in the school's IT system. I actually didn't find them, and it was my wife who eventually found the grades. So, we cannot have it that way. It must be more user-friendly.

This is not just about irritation in everyday life, this is also about social construction, housing, infrastructure, entrepreneurship and security – and people's opportunities to move forward in their important matters.

That is why we Social Democrats want to highlight a few things.

Firstly: Costs must be kept down. The government is open to fees for the use of the system. In that case, it must be clear how the costs are to be managed and how the municipalities are to be protected from being hit by increased costs due to state decisions.

Secondly: The municipalities must be involved. This must not be done over the heads of those who are actually going to work in the system. The municipal land survey authorities have experience, knowledge, and practical understanding that must be utilized.

For the third: The system must be useful and secure in reality, not just on paper. It must not only be technically possible but actually work for case officers, municipalities, companies, and citizens, and for the state's needs for secure information management.

For the fourth: The Government and Lantmäteriet must follow up on this carefully. It is not enough to introduce a common system and then say that the problem is solved. The results must be measured in reality. We would like to see shorter processing times, better service, increased legal certainty, strengthened security, and reasonable costs.

Madam Speaker! We are therefore saying yes to the common system, but we are also saying that Lantmäteriet has much to prove. They must show that they can deliver a system that works at a reasonable cost. Therefore, we Social Democrats will follow up on costs and security and be careful regarding how the municipalities and the Lantmäteriet authorities in the municipalities view the issues.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! We are, therefore, debating the government's proposal regarding requirements for the activities of municipal land survey authorities. Yes, debating and debating. It is only the Center Party that has a sharp proposal in the report. I therefore move for the approval of both of our reservations.

We do not reserve ourselves because we oppose high requirements or modernization. On the contrary. But we reserve ourselves because there is an important principle worth defending, namely that power and responsibility, as far as possible, should be close to the people. That which works well does not necessarily need to be centralized. Development does not always occur by concentrating more power in the state.

It is fundamentally about trust – trust in municipalities, trust in the profession, and trust that people and local communities can take responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps that is why it is appropriate that in this very matter I deliver my final speech in the Swedish Riksdag. My first speech in this chamber nearly eight years ago was also about trust. Then my knees shook, and nervousness set in.

But if someone were to ask me what has made Sweden one of the world's best countries, I would still answer the same thing: It is not our natural resources, not our geography, not even our economy, but it is the trust between people, trust in our institutions, the trust that the one who works, educates themselves and behaves correctly can also build a better life for themselves.

Trust is perhaps the most valuable thing we have, and it must never be taken for granted.

Madam Speaker! Eight years is a long time. Yet sometimes it feels like it has been a moment. I have experienced a lot. I have been allowed to rejoice, to doubt, to win and to lose. I have been right sometimes, and I have been wrong sometimes. That is how it is in politics. But no one shall be able to say that I did not try, and I have done my utmost to manage the trust I have been given. Whether I have succeeded or not, others must decide.

Politics is hard sometimes. We can exchange tough words between us. Politics can be ungrateful. It can be brutal, but it is also something so beautiful.

Ultimately, it is not about ourselves, but about the next generation. It is about leaving society a little better than we found it. No human is greater than democracy. We are only temporary stewards.

Other people sat here before us. Other people will sit here after us. So it shall be.

But, Madam Speaker, what Sweden do I hope that my children and future generations will inherit? I hope for a Sweden with faith in the future, a Sweden that dares to believe in itself, a Sweden where work and education pay off, where laws apply equally to everyone. I hope for a Sweden where people take responsibility but are also given opportunities, a Sweden where we can still disagree without becoming enemies.

We meet arguments with arguments, and we never forget that the one who thinks differently is also a fellow human being.

I hope for a Sweden where we hold fast to freedom. Freedom without responsibility does not survive. And responsibility without freedom is not worthy of man.

Madam Speaker! I came to Sweden from Iran on a windy day on April 27, 1992. I came from a country where people were not allowed to choose their leaders, where free speech was feared, where people were imprisoned for their opinions, where women were oppressed, where power was more important than human dignity.

Perhaps that is why I have never taken Swedish democracy for granted. I know, in fact, what the opposite looks like. I know what happens when freedom disappears. Therefore, the struggle for freedom will never be abstract. It is personal.

When I leave this chamber, I do not leave that struggle. I think of all those who still live without freedom. I think of those who sit in Iranian prisons. I think of those who dream of what we so often take for granted, namely to be able to say what one thinks, to be able to live without fear, to be able to choose one's leaders, to be able to be free.

To all Iranians, both inside Iran and around the world – over 150,000 here in Sweden – I want to say: Do not give up. Do not let bitterness become greater than hope. Do not let the division become stronger than the love for our country. No dictatorship lasts forever. No tyranny is stronger than the human longing for freedom. The darkness can be long. But the morning will come.

Madam Speaker! When I one day look back on these years, I will not primarily remember the motions or the votes. I will remember the people – the colleagues, the coworkers, the civil servants. I will remember all those people who every day, often without being seen, make our democracy function. And I will feel gratitude for having been a small part of Sweden's history.

Madam Speaker! I began my time in this chamber by speaking about trust. I leave it with the same conviction. For in a time when many doubt, I choose to believe. I believe in freedom. I believe in democracy. I believe in humanity's ability to rise when it falls. I believe that hope is always stronger than cynicism. And I believe that Sweden still has its best years ahead of it.

This country actually gave a boy from Iran a future. It gave me freedom and opportunities. And it gave me the almost unbelievable privilege of standing here, in Sweden's Riksdag, as an elected member. I will carry that with me as long as I live.

We are only temporary guests here. Others sat in these benches before us. And others will sit here after us. But Sweden remains.

When I now leave this rostrum for the last time, I do so with gratitude, with humility, and with hope. For I still believe in our beautiful elongated land. I still believe in freedom. And I still believe in democracy.

I still believe, just as strongly as when I gave my first speech eight years ago, that trust is a society's most important capital. And as long as people believe in freedom, most things will work out. As long as people refuse to give up, the darkness will never triumph. And as long as there are people who dare to hope, there is always a tomorrow.

Thank you, Madam Speaker! And thank you, Sweden!

(Applause)

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are therefore debating the requirements for the municipal land survey authorities' case management systems.

We propose that the municipal land survey authorities shall use the case management system and the technical processing supports provided by the state authority Lantmäteriet. The purpose is quite clear: the land registry activities shall be able to be conducted efficiently, uniformly and in a legally secure manner throughout the country.

The surveying activity is a central part of the community building process. It affects housing construction, property formation, infrastructure, business investments, and individuals' ability to use their property. Therefore, it is important that the system functions, that the information maintains high quality, and that the state can follow up on the activity in a unified manner.

We therefore consider it reasonable that the entire administrative operation uses a common system. I hardly believe it would have worked better if the system had been more complex or if there had been several different variants. A common system creates better conditions for uniform processing, safer information exchange, and a more efficient work process. It also provides a stable basis for follow-up, quality assurance, and development of the operation over time. I also believe that it will become significantly easier to demand efficiency and faster processing when one has one and the same common system.

Centerpartiet wants to reject the bill and instead investigate the issue further, as we heard here earlier. We believe that Centerpartiet, which among other things speaks about increased centralization and weaker technical development, misses the very core of the proposal. Lantmäteriet's current case management system is to be taken out of operation at the turn of the year 2026/27 and replaced by a new system. At that point, it needs to be clear for the municipalities what applies.

To postpone the issue in that situation, as the Centerpartiet proposes, risks creating uncertainty for both the state and the municipalities, as well as the people and companies that are dependent on fast and legally secure land survey proceedings.

I would like to say that the Center Party is playing a rather high game here. They do not seem to care whether it is the municipal taxpayers or the users who will have to pay for unnecessary, high development costs, should the worst happen and the Center Party receive support for its reservation.

What does it cost the municipalities or the users of the system if a system must be procured? What does it cost in procurement costs alone? And what does it cost in extra labor costs to work with several different systems, as the Center Party wants? We know that the costs are large to develop a system. Why should we then force taxpayers to bear the costs of developing several systems for the same thing? How would it become cheaper for the municipalities?

The questions are many. The answers are quite few. I did not hear particularly many answers to these questions in the previous statement, at least.

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

I also want, since this is probably our last debate, to thank all members of the Committee on Civil Affairs for good cooperation during the mandate period.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I wonder if anyone knows what happened on April 4, 1628. It was then that King Gustav II Adolf gave the order to establish a land survey. It has existed for that long. I believe that Lantmäteriet has gone through many different reforms since then. This is a small but oh so important reform.

We must remember that Lantmäteriet is, in fact, a foundation for the society we have today. It was some previous speaker who said that it is a society-critical activity, and I would like to assert that it is. What does the land look like? Who owns the land? Who has responsibility and so on? All these tasks are at Lantmäteriet.

Today we are dealing with a report on creating better conditions for an efficient and legally secure land survey activity in Sweden. We know that the Swedish National Audit Office conducted a review of Lantmäteriet in 2022. They established that the formation of real property is inefficient, with processing times that have become increasingly longer, fees that have risen sharply and unpredictable costs.

We have discussed these different parts quite many times in this chamber. When it comes to the high fees, we still have some work to do to handle them. The processing times have actually decreased. It may not only be the Riksdag's excellence that has done this; less is being built in Sweden, and thus the processing times are decreasing. One can clearly see that the processing times have decreased at Lantmäteriet.

Something that has not been handled, which could increase efficiency, is to make digitalization work across the entire line. That is actually what we are doing with this bill. We believe that the central Lantmäteriet and municipal land registries should use the same case management system to make it as efficient as possible and that the costs should be distributed. I think that is quite reasonable.

The Center Party said that they are the only ones who have a sharp proposal – that is quite true – and that power and responsibility should be as close to the citizens as possible. We Christian Democrats want to call it the subsidiarity principle, that is to say that decisions should be made at the lowest, most efficient level.

In this case, I believe that the lowest effective level means having the same system for the central Lantmäteriet as for the municipal lantmäterier, instead of having several different systems that are to be paid for in different ways and perhaps cannot communicate with each other in the end. I believe that this is the best way to do it.

I will not prolong this debate any further, but I believe that Alireza Akhondi's speech should be noted. We politicians can sometimes be quite stubborn, but I believe that Alireza Akhondi and we others have something in common, namely the feeling for our society and the will to try to make society better, regardless of which party one comes from. I think Alireza Akhondi expressed that in an excellent way. I thank you for your time in the Riksdag and for your courage to give that speech.

We sometimes forget why we are here – it is actually for our common good. I believe, regardless of which party one belongs to, that one wants to do as well as possible.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 June.)

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