Response to interpellation 2024/25:525 on Lantmäteriet
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government is taking measures to ensure security and reduce processing times by allocating funds for IT systems and more employees 1 2. KD wants to appoint an external auditor for information security 2 and claims that they have already taken measures to improve operations 3. KD argues that the government takes the issues seriously by appointing an external auditor and recruiting a new director-general 4. S considers that the government has acted passively and late on a failure that threatens Sweden's security and social construction 5. S criticizes that private individuals receive high invoices without clear answers. S considers that Lantmäteriet's current model is a failure that affects housing construction and entrepreneurship. S argues that processing times are increasing despite fewer cases and that the government has not taken responsibility for security flaws or the experiences of those affected 6. M argues that the S-government ignored warnings about Lantmäteriet for several years 7. M considers that the current government takes the issues seriously and is improving operations 7. M considers that S failed to manage Lantmäteriet over eight years and that the government lacked focus due to frequent changes of ministers.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Denis Begic has asked me what concrete measures I and the government have taken to ensure that the security deficiencies within Lantmäteriet are not repeated. Furthermore, Denis Begic has asked me how I and the government intend to address the long processing times and high costs.
I want to begin by expressing regret that Lantmäteriet's shutdown of the digital services has led to long waiting times for the users who have been affected. As a result of the shutdowns, Lantmäteriet has been forced to manually handle requests for access to administrative records. The shutdown has entailed extensive additional work both regarding the confidentiality review of the content in specific records and regarding the broader work of making as much of the important information contained in the records available as possible through direct access.
During the autumn of 2024, Lantmäteriet recruited 20 employees for a new function working with confidentiality reviews. In addition, 17 man-years have been redistributed for the work of making available the important information contained in the preparatory documents for the community construction process. Lantmäteriet has announced that they are concentrating efforts with a focus on ensuring that the release of archive records takes place promptly, regardless of whether they are released manually or via digital services, with the goal that release shall take place within 48 hours.
On 23 January 2025, Lantmäteriet submitted a letter to the Government Offices where the agency requested that its administrative appropriation be increased by 30 million kronor during 2025 for the development of the agency's internal IT systems and so that more people can be employed to manually review files. Last Tuesday, I was able to present that the government proposes that funds be allocated for this purpose in the supplementary budget. On 3 March, the agency also requested a corresponding sum for 2026–2028.
In the regulatory letter for the 2025 budget year, the government tasked Lantmäteriet with reporting on the work to strengthen internal governance and control to promote a good administrative culture. The assignment has been partially reported and is to be final reported on February 16, 2026. The government will also take measures to review and strengthen the conditions for Lantmäteriet's work with information security. The government has additionally appointed an acting director-general pending the appointment of a new permanent director-general. I can return to which additional measures may become relevant for the government to take.
Lantmäteriet's improvement work regarding simplification and service is a priority issue, and it was therefore raised in the agency dialogue 2024. In Lantmäteriet's annual report, it is stated that processing times generally decreased during 2024, primarily because the queue times were reduced. Queue time is the term used in the annual report for the time that elapses from when a case is received by Lantmäteriet until the case is assigned to a processor and thus begins to be processed. The time between when processing begins and a decision is made is referred to in the annual report as production time.
Lantmäteriet's assessment is overall that the processing times within the land consolidation activities are too long and that improvements need to be made to shorten the production lead times. The Government is closely following the issue of processing times and costs for land consolidation cases.
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer to my interpellation. It is of course welcome that the government is now proposing appropriations to Lantmäteriet to handle the acute situation the agency finds itself in. But let us be honest: This is a reaction to a failure that has been ongoing for far too long. It is a failure that has not only affected thousands of people and companies but also shows how the government is not taking its responsibility.
Lantmäteriet is one of our most critical authorities. It is not just about maps and drawings but also about infrastructure and, in the long run, Sweden's security. When this authority fails, as it has now done, it creates ripples far beyond the authority's office walls. Construction projects do not happen. Companies are shut down. Private individuals cannot carry out a simple land consolidation without waiting for a year, and they also have to pay dearly for it. Something is really wrong when private individuals do not even receive clear answers as to why invoices of hundreds of thousands of kronor are sent.
The most serious matter, Mr. Speaker, however, is that we have an authority that has repeatedly been warned internally about serious security deficiencies. Documents covered by defense secrecy have been freely available for download. The Government was informed of this as early as March last year, but still chose not to do anything. For me, this is not only passive but also reckless.
It is important to point out that it was only in May – after internal pressure and after parts of the board flagged that it could involve crimes against the Security Protection Act – that Lantmäteriet shut down its digital services. This did not happen following an intervention from the government, but despite the government's passivity. It took another half year before the government even began to speak about resources or measures. During this time, the problems for companies, municipalities, and private individuals grew, and the uncertainty increased.
One could call this a lack of competence, but to me, it appears as misconduct in office. It is not acceptable to rely on an agency that is subject to a security review, and whose director-general was ultimately forced to leave the agency, to decide for itself whether the government needs to act.
Mr. Speaker! I have asked questions to the Minister during the past year. I have received evasive answers. The Government has constantly referred to the fact that they are following the developments. But when it concerns Sweden's security and one of the most important authorities in the social construction chain, it is not enough to follow, one must lead. One must act when the warnings come. It is not optional.
That the government is now allocating resources is a step in the right direction, but this must not hide the fact that they let months pass without addressing the problem. It is not only Lantmäteriet that must take responsibility, but the minister and the government must also do so. Therefore, my question is why the minister and the government did not act earlier.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Denis Begic is absolutely right: the government should have acted much more forcefully when it was discovered what had happened. It is actually inconceivable, or very difficult to understand, that the government did not act. The problem is that it was the Social Democratic government that did not act. Already in 2018, the Lantmäteriet scandal was flagged. Also in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, these problems were flagged. It is actually difficult to understand why Denis Begic is submitting an interpellation to this housing minister when it was the then Social Democratic government that did not act.
We all remember the scandal with the Transport Agency. I don't know if Denis Begic has access to the internet, but if he does, he can read Expressen's fantastic account of the exact times when this came to light. The internal audit raised the alarm time and again, but strangely enough, the then Social Democratic government apparently had no follow-up of Lantmäteriet. If they had had it, they would probably have acted in some way during the mandate period when the Social Democrats were in power.
I think the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing's answer was exemplary. It accounted for what this government is doing to resolve all the problems that exist at Lantmäteriet.
I had some fun googling a bit and looking at which decisions the government has made to improve Lantmäteriet. There are so many decisions that my time will not be sufficient, but I mention some of them. It concerns, among other things, better organization of the land consolidation activities, coordinate-determined property boundaries, digitalization of the community construction process, powerful resource reinforcements to Lantmäteriet from the government, and electronic transfers. Additionally, a housing cooperative register for all housing cooperatives is on the way. Finally, we have a government and a cabinet member who take these issues seriously!
My question to Denis Begic is: Why didn't the Social Democrats do this? In 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, alarm reports about Lantmäteriet were received, but no follow-up whatsoever was made. I actually think it is remarkable that the Social Democrats write that this problem emerged in 2024 and that the government is not acting. For six years you had the chance to act, but you did not.
Thank you, Minister, for taking this issue seriously! Thank you for improving Lantmäteriet! The Social Democrats caused the mess, but now it is being resolved.
Kjell Jansson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Andreas Carlson for addressing the problem with Lantmäteriet. It is a major concern, which I have had my own experiences of since many years ago.
A blatant example exists at Högmarsö in the Stockholm archipelago. Here lives an elderly pensioner, and a neighbor has pointed out that a path runs across his property. The error is originally from Lantmäteriet, but the old man has now been charged 1.1 million by Lantmäteriet to get this in order. I think that the authority should take responsibility in such cases and sort it out themselves instead of charging a poor old pensioner because he happens to live on the wrong property.
We have inherited this problem from the S-MP government. The Social Democrats should have dealt with this a long time ago, as it has become worse over the last 20 years, ever since Joakim Olén resigned as director-general. It has not gone quickly, but it has progressively gone in the wrong direction all the time – and just as Member Beckman reported, several audit reports have been serious. It is therefore very good that the government is taking action on this.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The interpellor poses two main questions: What concrete measures has the government taken to ensure that the security deficiencies within Lantmäteriet are not repeated? How does the government intend to address the long processing times and high costs?
I have already answered these questions in the debate, but let me repeat that in this year's spring supplementary budget, we allocate exactly as much as Lantmäteriet itself says it needs this year to handle the situation that has arisen. It is this need that Lantmäteriet, under the acting director-general's leadership, has pointed out until now, and now the government is responding to it shortly after the agency's request. This enables Lantmäteriet to hire more people for the manual handling of cases and expands the possibility to adapt IT systems and other things so that the important records can be handled in as secure a way as possible. The work with confidentiality reviews and ensuring that records go to the correct agency, organization, or person needs to be strengthened. This is therefore an important announcement the government makes in the spring supplementary budget.
Furthermore, in the regulatory letter, the government tasked the authority to report on how the work to strengthen internal governance and control is carried out, how a good administrative culture is promoted, and how this work is progressing. This was reported partially for the first time in February and shall be reported partially again in May. Final reporting takes place on 16 February 2026.
In order to get to the bottom of the particularly important information security and confidentiality issues, the government intends to make a decision to appoint an external and independent reviewer of how these issues should best be handled going forward.
The government is furthermore always prepared to take further measures if necessary.
The measures that have been taken do, however, correspond to the situation here and now, where much, of course, is about this happening in a secure manner while processing times are reduced, against the background of the very important functions that exist in Lantmäteriet's records and activities, just as the interpellor has pointed out.
Member of Parliament Beckman took up several other measures the government has taken which aim to achieve a significantly better land consolidation activity, which is also updated to today's possibilities with coordinate-determined property boundaries. There is a whole list of measures, and Beckman was touching on a couple of these. These measures are linked to processing times and the Swedish Mapping Authority's function. The activity is definitely lagging here, but the government is now taking the measures required for Sweden to have a better land surveying activity. Work is therefore ongoing at high speed, Mr. Speaker.
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister and also the two Moderates; it shows that the debate is important.
I have been informed by people across the country that they have received invoices of up to 100,000 kronor from Lantmäteriet, and Member Jansson told us about the old man. None of these people have received any clear answer as to what the money is for. It is not uncommon for these people to be bounced around between departments without anyone being able to provide an answer. This is not just unreasonable; it is a violation of legal certainty.
In a notable case reported by TV4, Lena from Västerbotten was forced to pay nearly 91,000 kronor for a simple subdivision of land where the boundaries were already established. When Lena pointed out that Lantmäteriet had made a mistake, the additional costs were placed on her. Despite the fact that the authority had made a mistake, Lena was therefore charged again. Her words were clear: I feel robbed by a Swedish authority.
This was no exception. Lantmäteriet is perceived today as a brake in the construction of society. TV4 also tells about Olov and Jennie in Norrbotten who have waited for over two years to have their land subdivided – a matter that Lantmäteriet itself says should take six months. In the meantime, the invoices continue to stream in, with hourly costs between 900 and 1,700 kronor depending on the case officer.
Mr. Speaker! Is this a sustainable model for the exercise of authority? I do not think so. Is it reasonable that private individuals must request time cards, analyze invoices and contact lawyers to understand why they are being asked to pay tens of thousands of kronor to the state?
On Lantmäteriet's own website, it states that the processing of dissemination permits, which is a completely fundamental function, currently takes up to 55 working days, i.e., almost three months. This furthermore only applies to cases received since November last year. Regarding building permit cases, the wait is often up to a year or more, which I have heard from private individuals, municipalities, and companies I have been in contact with.
As if this were not enough, the reopening of the digital services is now delayed by six to nine months. Sweden is one of the world's most digitized countries, but here we are back in the 80s.
Processing times are increasing despite fewer cases coming in. How is that possible? What does this say about management, about priorities, and about the government's responsibility?
Mr. Speaker! This is no longer an administrative challenge; it is a failure. It affects the possibility of building housing, starting businesses, and owning and cultivating land. It hits the countryside, the municipalities, and hits faith in the future. Many have contacted me and asked: Does the Minister feel any responsibility at all for this and for the people who are affected?
Therefore, I ask: Does the Minister truly believe that Lantmäteriet is an agency that delivers in accordance with its assignments? If not, what is the government doing about it?
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! In 2014, a report from the Swedish National Audit Office was released which examined Lantmäteriet's various methods of setting fees. This was followed up a number of years later. That means that the Social Democrats had 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, i.e., eight years, to get Lantmäteriet in order. They demonstrably failed to do so, as we hear that member Denis Begic is not satisfied with how Lantmäteriet functions.
I also noted that Denis Begic did not comment on the fact that his government did not act in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022 despite extensive alarm reports at Lantmäteriet. This is very much reminiscent of how the Social Democrats handled the scandal at Transportstyrelsen, something that may have damaged Sweden fundamentally. How much we do not know, however.
When it comes to Lantmäteriet and the function of Lantmäteriet, I share Denis Begic's opinion. Lantmäteriet is incredibly important in the community building process. Everything starts, in fact, with a land regulation.
I remember a company in Ljusdal that told me how they wanted to expand their business. They had reached an agreement with the neighbors that they could buy the plot and would start building, but then it took the Lantmäteriet two years to subdivide the plot. For two years, an expansion that was important for the business community in Ljusdal was prevented.
The question, Denis Begic, is: Why did the government do nothing? You received a Swedish National Audit Office report in 2014 that described all the problems at Lantmäteriet, so how could we lose eight years? One explanation could be that you changed housing ministers every year. I don't remember and cannot even rattle them off, and I don't think anyone here knows who were the housing ministers during those eight years. You changed regularly more than once a year, so there was no focus and no systematic approach.
I believe that the housing minister who is here now has served the longest in modern times, and things are also happening. We look forward to the function of Lantmäteriet being improved.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I believe there is quite a broad consensus in the chamber regarding the important function of Lantmäteriet. There is also a consensus in the chamber that it needs to function better.
The question that Denis Begic asked, whether Lantmäteriet delivers in accordance with its assignments, one cannot answer yes to. That is why we in the regulatory letter to Lantmäteriet have given a very clear mandate to strengthen the work with governance and control. That is why we have notified that an external independent auditor shall be appointed to look at how the issues concerning information security and confidentiality issues should be handled going forward. That is why we have a recruitment process for a new Director General for Lantmäteriet, and an acting Director General has also been appointed, who is working at full capacity.
I want to remind the member of the principle of responsibility. The authorities have a far-reaching responsibility. The government takes this very seriously, of course. We are fully aware of the problems that exist. I thank you for the descriptions that have been provided. It needs to become a more efficient operation, and Lantmäteriet needs to continue to streamline it.
Lantmäteriet points out in its annual report that production lead times need to be shortened, and as the members in this chamber know, one of the government's priorities in social construction and housing policy is to shorten the lead times.
The answers I previously gave here in the chamber also provide answers to the question in Denis Begic's post.
Denis Begic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I understand that a couple of extra Moderates are needed to shout a bit extra about things and conditions here in the chamber and about what has and has not happened with Lantmäteriet.
As the Minister knows, I have filed a report with the KU regarding the handling. I can say that it was not an easy decision. It was a decision that I made after months of questions that I felt I did not receive answers to, and after having witnessed how the government repeatedly hid behind the answer that Lantmäteriet has a mandate.
I want to mention that the Minister received information about Lantmäteriet's security deficiencies in March 2024. In May, after much internal pressure, a decision was made regarding the shutdown. Despite the fact that it concerned defense and society-critical data and the exercise of authority of utmost importance, the government did nothing.
I have received evasive answers. I hope that Lena, Olov, Jennie and everyone else who has been affected write directly to the Minister and tell about their experiences, just as they have written to me and told me. Perhaps it can provide some insight into how poorly both the authority and the government have handled the issue.
The Minister previously mentioned that no action was needed between March and December 2024, when the Director General was to leave. In that case, one must ask the question: Where does the responsibility lie?
Mr. Speaker! We need clarity, we need accountability, and we need a Lantmäteriet that functions. If nothing happens, it will hit Swedish society and the construction of society very hard.
I look forward to hearing what the KU concludes. Regardless of whether it is something good or bad, we can perhaps learn how we should handle the socially important issues in the future.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! In this interpellation debate, Denis Begic has not received any evasive answers. The two questions that the interpellator posed in the interpellation have been answered, and the question of whether Lantmäteriet delivers in accordance with its assignments has been answered.
I look forward to us achieving a better functioning land survey activity in Sweden, and I have accounted for which measures the government has already taken and plans to take.
It is, of course, up to the members of the Chamber to engage in this interpellation debate and point backwards at what should have been done a long time ago. I have not devoted myself to that in this debate, but what is important now is that there is a consensus regarding Lantmäteriet's important functions and that they need to become significantly better.
Now we have a government that takes these issues most seriously. We will, of course, continue that work. I am happy to answer questions. I have done so in the Committee on Civil Affairs, and I will do so in the Committee on the Constitution. These are questions that deserve to be answered, and it is an authority that deserves to be debated, highlighted, and focused on. I think it is important that it is done now, but as several members have pointed out, it might have been good if it had been done much earlier.
We are now working full-scale to ensure the handling of records in a way that takes into account both information security and confidentiality, while simultaneously making information available that is necessary for the entire community-building process. That work will continue.
I thank Denis Begic and the other members for their commitment in this debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.