Better conditions in animal health and veterinary care as well as animal welfare

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! Anyone who has ever had an animal knows that it is not just a pet. It is a family member. They comfort us when we are sad. They welcome us home every day with joy. They are with us in the routines of everyday life and in life's great moments. And just like for all family members, we want them to receive care when they become ill and the right help in time, regardless of where in the country one lives.

So that is not how reality has looked in recent years. During several summers, animal hospitals have had to close due to a shortage of veterinarians and veterinary nurses. That meant, Mr. Speaker, a risk that pets in acute situations did not receive care in time. It is appalling to think that a dog, a cat, or a horse suffers unnecessarily, perhaps even dies, because there are not enough available veterinarians. If a dog is hit by a car, if a cat is bitten by a snake, if a pregnant bitch has complications, or if something happens to one's farm animals, the care must be available. It must not be a lottery depending on where one lives.

This does not only apply to our pets, but farmers and their animals are also seriously affected by the shortage of veterinarians. Over the years, I have had long conversations with veterinarians when I have visited operations. They have told me what consequences arise if one does not have enough veterinarians or animal healthcare providers. Animals risk unnecessary suffering, and they become sick. In the worst cases, they die.

It does not stop there. There has been a shortage of veterinarians and animal healthcare workers in recent years. If veterinarians do not manage to get out to the farms, it has consequences for the agricultural industry as a whole. If the veterinarians do not manage to perform their inspections in time, food production and animal welfare are affected.

Mr. Speaker! We must do more to strengthen animal healthcare across the entire country. That is exactly what the government is doing now. There will be more hands in the care and better competence supply. One of the biggest challenges we face is precisely the shortage of veterinarians and animal healthcare workers, especially in rural areas. Therefore, the government is making several interventions in the area, which makes us feel more secure.

The government is reviewing the number of training places for veterinarians and animal nurses, to ensure that more can receive education and that more choose to work with agricultural animals. We are facilitating for foreign veterinarians to obtain Swedish certification in order to take advantage of the competence that comes to Sweden. More animal caregivers shall be able to become certified and join the animal health staff, which frees up veterinarians for the most advanced interventions that may be required when animals become ill. However, more needs to be done to secure the animal nursing profession.

Animal caregivers have an assistant nurse role within animal care. Competent animal caregivers play a key role in animal healthcare. Today, their powers are very limited, despite the fact that their education is as extensive as that of an assistant nurse within human care. It is not reasonable that an assistant nurse is allowed to perform a range of medical interventions on a human while an animal caregiver is not allowed to do the equivalent on an animal, despite the need existing.

Mr. Speaker! We therefore want to improve the quality of the upper secondary education for animal care workers. We want to create a new regulated professional category within animal care that corresponds to nursing assistants. The expanded tasks that animal care workers have been allowed to perform through temporary exemptions should become permanent. They only applied until December 31, 2023.

This is one step in what we want to do to increase the competence within animal healthcare and increase the willingness to work there. It would not only strengthen animal healthcare but also relieve the veterinarians so that they can focus on what they are best at.

Mr. Speaker! The most important thing regarding veterinary care is increased accessibility and security. Animal healthcare must be available around the clock throughout the entire country. Therefore, the government is reviewing how private actors can take greater responsibility for the preparedness within animal healthcare. It cannot be the case that animal owners in certain parts of the country lack emergency veterinary care. It is completely unacceptable.

We also see a need for increased transparency in the pricing of veterinary care. Many pet owners experience that it is difficult to predict the costs for care, especially in the case of acute procedures. The Government is therefore reviewing how information about the costs of veterinary care can be improved and how increased comparability can be enabled.

There is also talk of strengthened supervision and quality requirements within veterinary care, Mr. Speaker. It is a major problem today that the supervision within veterinary care is individual-based. It is directed at individual veterinarians and animal health personnel rather than at the companies and organizations that conduct the operations. That is changing now. By introducing operational supervision, we will ensure that the supervision is directed at the healthcare providers, which provides better control and higher quality in the care.

We are also introducing stricter requirements that veterinary care must have the right resources for staff, premises, and equipment. It is a crucial reform to ensure that veterinary care maintains a high and consistent standard across the entire country.

We want to see continued strengthened animal welfare with a focus on infection control and animal welfare. We have in Sweden, Mr. Speaker, one of the world's best animal welfare systems, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We therefore continue to strengthen preparedness regarding infectious animal diseases so that we can act quickly in the event of an outbreak. We will protect animals in agriculture during transport and at slaughterhouses through continued high requirements for animal welfare.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Our responsibility for the animals is important. Animals are not just a part of our lives. They are a part of our families, our everyday lives, and our society.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech! I truly agree with the description of how important a role animals can play for individual people. I myself had a Jack Russell who became 13 years old and who accompanied me through life – through studies, the first pregnancy, and also life as a member of parliament, which in many ways is very overwhelming. She was a very great support in that.

That is why we Social Democrats think it is very worrying that we are heading towards a development where it begins to resemble a class issue whether one can have a dog or a cat in the family. The prices for veterinary care that we see today are very high and are driven by the fact that the Swedish veterinary market has, for the most part, been bought up by a number of large private equity firms. The high costs for veterinary care also drive up the insurance premiums for our pets. It becomes a vicious spiral that hits ordinary people, who in the worst case may have to give up their animals because they can no longer afford to pay the veterinary bills.

My question to the member, Mr. Speaker, is therefore whether she thinks it is reasonable that venture capital companies should be able to continue making large profits at the expense of ordinary pet owners. If not, what does the government intend to do in that case to tackle this market failure?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit strange that the Member of Parliament is bringing this up. The Social Democrats now want to introduce a profit cap in the veterinary industry. It might seem good at first glance. But the question is whether one has actually understood what it is that drives the costs for animal healthcare. Has Member of Parliament Sofia Skönnbrink understood this?

Veterinary medicine is highly specialized care. Just as in human healthcare, advanced medical technology is used, and it requires specially trained personnel and advanced treatments – all to ensure that our animals receive the best possible care. The difference is that while human healthcare is tax-funded, the animal owner pays the entire cost themselves.

If the Social Democrats now consider the cost of animal healthcare to be too high, are you prepared to subsidize it just as you do human healthcare? Is this what the Member of Parliament and the Social Democrats want, or do you mean that prices should be lowered by compromising on quality? Should we cut back on advanced care? Will animal owners have to wait longer for emergency care for their sick animals?

The veterinary industry is already suffering today from a shortage of staff and an extremely pressured work situation. According to the industry organizations and the veterinarians themselves, the Socialdemokraternas proposal risks leading to even fewer actors, poorer accessibility, and ultimately poorer animal welfare.

My question back to the member is therefore: Do you have a concrete solution for how healthcare can become cheaper without the quality being worsened and without the state taking over the cost? Or is this just a populist initiative that you are putting forward, as so many other times?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to know where to begin to address this. Of course, one should pay for the care that is provided. A major problem today is that as an animal owner, one has very little insight into what it is that one is paying for because the price transparency is so poor. We want it to increase. Anyone in here knows that one would never order a renovation of a bathroom without knowing in advance what the final price will be.

Animal owners today encounter very advanced care, just as Marléne Lund Kopparklint says. One receives very many offers regarding different types of interventions that could improve the situation for our animals and, in some cases, even mean the difference between life and death. On such an occasion, it is difficult for a vulnerable animal owner to make a conscious and well-considered decision – it is about moving the boundary of which intervention should be made and not. One must, therefore, have clear for oneself what it is that one is paying for and, if it concerns an acute intervention, how large the surcharge will be for it.

Limiting profits is something we Social Democrats consider important. We do not think it is reasonable that one should be able to take out large profits in either veterinary care or the school system. Therefore, we have looked at the French example, where veterinarians need to be majority owners in clinics so that they cannot be run for profit. It is about the money going back and that our animals should receive good care.

That is why we would have liked to see the government somehow incorporate a proposal of that type into the bill to improve the price level for Swedish veterinary care – so that members of Swedish households can still come home in the afternoon to a dog with a wagging tail.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Member of Parliament Sofia Skönnbrink did not answer my questions regarding how the Social Democrats intended the financing when presenting such a proposal. It is always easy to present proposals on how one would like things to be, but the state does not have an inexhaustible treasury. We must prioritize.

My question remains: How do the Social Democrats intend to finance this? Is it to be done by lowering the quality of animal healthcare or by subsidizing animal healthcare? We have submitted a proposal to introduce supervision and have comparison objects so that it becomes easier for pet owners to know how to view the prices and what they are entitled to when they come to the veterinarian. We are developing different proposals to improve things for the pet owner and make it simpler.

But the Social Democrats are just rattling off a proposal that they do not want profits in welfare, despite knowing that this is self-financed. I would like to have answers as to what the Member of Parliament and the Social Democrats have for a proposal regarding this.

The veterinary industry is already suffering from a staff shortage and an extremely pressured situation. Your proposal will most likely lead to even fewer actors, poorer accessibility, and ultimately poorer animal welfare.

How is the care supposed to become cheaper according to the Social Democrats without the quality deteriorating or the state taking over the cost, in the same way as human care is subsidized? That is what I would like an answer to, but we can take that in another debate.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Kopparklint, for the speech! We agree with much of what the government states and what is in the bill, above all how the role of veterinarians can be strengthened, how knowledge from other countries can be used, and how records can be written in a better way.

From time to time, the issue of animal welfare arises in the Swedish debate, and it heats up. This is not least about the grazing requirement, which some organizations have fixated on and narrowed the whole thing down to, as if it is the only thing that matters.

Regardless of this, we have very good animal welfare in Sweden. It is significantly tougher here than in many other places in Europe. Now we are expecting an animal welfare package from the EU Commission, but so far it looks very thin. Sweden needs to push here. My question therefore is: Is the Member and the M satisfied with the effort that Rural Affairs Minister Kullgren has made so far to improve animal welfare in the EU?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

When it comes to these issues and the connection to the EU, I wonder if one can ever be satisfied. It can always be better. But as the Member of Parliament also knows, it is a long process to push this through in the EU.

We in Sweden can be proud of the animal welfare we have. We can be proud of the consumption of antibiotics we have. We can be proud of the transport requirements we have for our animals, which we also strengthen and lobby for in the EU – we are trying to implement stricter requirements there as well.

The answer to the question of whether I am satisfied with Rural Minister Peter Kullgren's work in the EU is: Yes, I am satisfied with the government's work regarding these issues. It can feel a bit slow sometimes, but we are achieving success. We in Sweden achieve success by highlighting our good examples of how we work with animal welfare issues.

But as the Member of Parliament knows, it is a long process, and there is a lot of work to be done to increase knowledge about how we work and what standards we have in Sweden. I am satisfied with the work that the government is performing, but good can always become better when we talk about animal welfare.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the member brings up the use of antibiotics specifically. It is an additional problem in this that there are significantly more sick animals with weak animal welfare rules in the EU. Many animals – poultry and, for example, pigs and other animals – are regularly given antibiotics in their feed. This increasing use of antibiotics also leads to resistance. It threatens not only the animals but also human health and our healthcare.

The committee chairman mentioned that one lobbies and so on. But at some point, it is not enough. We can see that. Antibiotic resistance must be combated and prevented, and the EU should globally take the lead in this work. It is also an issue where we reserve ourselves in the report, precisely to increase the pressure on the EU and on what we can do. What are the Moderaterna and the government doing to achieve more responsible antibiotic use?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in the previous speech, it is about sitting down at the table, discussing the issues and highlighting the good Swedish example of how we work and how important it is for Sweden, as well as talking about how important it is to apply it to other countries. It is about how we can work forward, what we see as success factors and how we can discuss this in the EU. It is a task that we have taken to heart most seriously. We will continue with it when it comes to the issues regarding antibiotic use, because we know that it can be reduced. We will also highlight this even more in the discussions in the EU where we talk about these issues in general.

I believe, therefore, that I answered the question in the previous post: We are actively working on this. But it is a long process, and sometimes one wants it to go faster.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I was a child and went to primary school, it was very popular with so-called "friendship books." In those books, you would fill in what food you liked most, what was your favorite animal, and what you wanted to work with when you grew up. I always wrote tacos, horse, and veterinarian. I can promise that it wasn't just me who dreamed of someday getting to work at a veterinary clinic.

But unfortunately, it does not look the same today, at least not when it comes to the district veterinarians' operations, where they struggle to recruit competent staff who also want to stay. It is particularly challenging in rural and remote areas, where employment with the district veterinarians involves very heavy work with farm animals and horses, often during inconvenient working hours.

Perhaps it is not so difficult to understand why very many veterinarians choose to seek further employment with private actors to work with smaller companion animals during the daytime. It is presumably much more pleasant to pull a tooth on a sedated Labrador than to try to save a family pony in an ice-cold stable on Christmas Eve.

Mr. Speaker! In order for all of Sweden to be able to live, veterinary care that is available around the clock, all year round, and across the entire country is needed. If this is to be possible, the on-call service needs to be distributed in a fairer way. We Social Democrats therefore want private actors to take a greater responsibility to ensure the veterinary readiness during evenings, nights, and weekends.

Mr. Speaker! When public and private actors are given equal conditions, competition in the veterinary market will also improve. Therefore, it is remarkable that the government judges that it is not necessary to implement this change at the present time and instead postpones it to the future.

We Social Democrats believe that the shortage of veterinarians is acute and that Swedish animal healthcare is yet another example of a market failure that must be resolved. To manage that, one must dare to be a little bold and make uncomfortable decisions, for example, by placing requirements on private actors. How else are we to get today's children and young people to want to invest in a career as a district veterinarian?

Mr. Speaker! The shortage of veterinarians risks not only affecting animal welfare negatively, but also our food production and our farmers' everyday lives are affected. When I visited Godås gård in Säffle about two weeks ago, Johan Svantesson, a producer of organic beef, told me that it is difficult to get hold of veterinarians who can come out to the farm for routine visits, for example to castrate his bull calves. The district veterinarians in Säffle are understaffed and must prioritize the most seriously ill animals. Therefore, they do not have time to come out for those types of interventions.

For Johan and the gang at Godås gård, this has major consequences, not least as we now approach summer. The bulls must be castrated before they are released onto pasture. If no veterinarian can come there and do it, the animals must be kept inside. This entails an increased cost for feed and bedding, which could have been avoided if the animal healthcare had functioned as intended.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the shortage of veterinarians, the high cost of veterinary care is an issue that has gained increasing space in the political debate lately. A survey that Agria has conducted shows that nine out of ten animal owners are concerned about the veterinary bills. One in three even avoids taking their animal to the veterinarian even if it might be needed, because they are terrified of what the bill will amount to. It is very serious from an animal welfare perspective.

But it is also not strange considering how much more expensive it has become in recent years. It has even become so bad that owners and keepers are forced to give up their dogs because they cannot afford to keep them.

We Social Democrats take it seriously that it will soon become a class issue whether one can afford to have a dog or cat in the family or not. To address this, it requires not only better competition in the veterinary market but also increased price transparency. We want it to be easier for pet owners to find out in advance how much a procedure will cost. Therefore, we want to ensure that veterinary clinics provide price indications for different types of treatments. Pet owners shall also be clearly informed about what cost is added when a service is performed as an emergency treatment. Even in acute cases, pet owners shall be able to make an active choice.

We also want to see clearer price comparison tools between insurance companies. Unclear price information makes it difficult to make conscious choices, which can even lead to people refraining from taking out an insurance policy. We think it is a pity that the government's bill omits this type of proposal, which would have been needed to avoid overpricing and to improve the price level for Swedish veterinary care.

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate is about so much more than just the shortage of veterinarians and healthcare for animals. Today we are also debating the overall animal welfare policy in Sweden.

If anything has become clear to me lately, it is that the image of what good animal welfare is can differ very much depending on who you ask. For me, good animal welfare does not just mean that our animals stay healthy and get clean water and good feed – for me, it is at least as important that our animals are kept in a good environment and that they have the opportunity to perform their natural behaviors. Pigs should be able to grunt, preferably outdoors but otherwise inside the pen with access to straw, hens should be able to dust bathe and horses should have enough space to be able to move in all their gaits. Dogs should be walked and activated in the way that suits the breed.

I want to remind the members in this chamber that the animals' right to natural behavior is one of the portal paragraphs in the Swedish Animal Welfare Act. It is this that makes us unique compared to other countries.

That is why I, like many others, react strongly to the competitiveness investigation's proposal to restrict Swedish dairy cows' right to pasture. The investigator claims that free-stall barns offer equivalent conditions to meet the cows' needs, but this claim is therefore not scientifically grounded – not even when it concerns the modern free-stall barns that people like to talk about.

It is also wrong to speak of the grazing requirement as something that only entails additional costs, because cows that are released onto pasture stay healthier and are not affected to the same extent by costly production diseases such as lameness and mastitis. They also move more and are given the opportunity to perform social behaviors that are highly motivating for them.

The requirement for origin is also the single greatest reason why Sweden's municipalities and regions can procure Swedish dairy products and Swedish beef to such a large extent as they do today.

We Social Democrats think it is important that the livestock requirement remains. I therefore move for approval of reservation 16.

Mr. Speaker! I want Sweden to continue to be a pioneer regarding animal welfare and animal health issues. Instead of us restricting our own legislation, the rest of the EU needs to catch up with Sweden.

We know that the EU's current animal welfare legislation is outdated and in great need of updating. It needs to be changed so that it can meet the latest scientific findings and society's expectations. Therefore, it was very pleasing that the EU Commission, as part of the Farm to Fork strategy, was tasked with investigating and presenting proposals for new rules for, among other things, animal keeping, transport and slaughter, as well as the labeling of food.

Unfortunately, it now appears that parts of the proposal will be stopped entirely or that the commission will choose to present a watered-down proposal for legislation. Vocal critics argue that the new legislative proposal would wipe out the entire European agriculture and food production at large because it is impossible to meet stricter requirements. But we here know that is not true. Swedish farmers have shown that it is possible and deliver food daily from operations with high animal welfare requirements and low antibiotic use.

Mr. Speaker! I want to see healthy and well-being animals throughout Europe and a market where Swedish farmers meet fair competitive conditions.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Björn Petersson (both S) concurred.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are many points that I would like to take up with Member of Parliament Skönnbrink, but I choose to stick to a few.

During the previous parliamentary term, when the Social Democrats held government power, I raised the issue of the acute shortage of veterinarians in Sweden on repeated occasions. Already in February 2020, I submitted an interpellation to the then Minister for Rural Affairs Jennie Nilsson and asked what measures the government intended to take to handle the acute situation and the shortage of animal nurses and veterinarians.

Despite these pressures and this obvious need for immediate action, the government chose to only appoint an inquiry. The Social Democrats appointed an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker! This was an insufficient measure that did not address the acute situation. I also pointed this out in written questions, where I underlined that an investigation did not help against the acute shortage of veterinarians, that several emergency services had to close during the summer, and that more powerful measures were needed to prevent unnecessary suffering for livestock and pets.

The Social Democrats propose that the profit motive within the veterinary industry should be limited. It is quite interesting to listen to, but it would be even more interesting to listen to how one intends to solve that equation. As I wondered in a previous exchange of remarks: Is it to be solved by subsidizing animal healthcare? Is it to be solved by reducing the quality so that the livestock are left without the quality animal healthcare they need? The farmers who require specialist help will not receive it because one is forced to cut back on everything. How is it to be solved?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions!

The Chairman says that the only thing we did was to appoint an inquiry. But we did appoint an inquiry.

The investigation presented its proposal quite soon after Peter Kullgren had taken office as Minister for Rural Affairs. It took over two years before the Minister for Rural Affairs chose to proceed with parts of the investigation's proposal. It is that government bill that we are handling here in the chamber today.

The investigation was in many ways important and good. What is regrettable is that one did not act earlier but let it sit on the back burner for such a long time.

In the government's position, we also increased the number of educational places, which was an important step.

The opposition takes up the interest in profit once again. Of course, a company should be able to take out profit so that one can ensure that the staff receive wages and that the business can function. What I tried to highlight in my speech are the appalling usurious prices on Swedish veterinary care that we see today and which in turn drive up the price of insurance premiums. It is a vicious spiral where there does not seem to be any stop, and where very much has happened in just a few years.

When one sees that development, it is time to act. I do not think it is wise that those who manufacture the chocolate Mars should run veterinary clinics in Sweden and take profit from it.

(Applause)

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Member of Parliament is right in one thing: incredibly much has happened during the recent years. Advanced technology has moved forward. Research on how to best help animals has moved forward.

The Member of Parliament speaks about the right to deduct profits for overheads, wages, and so on. But shouldn't the companies within animal healthcare be able to pay the overheads for the specialist care that actually exists today? A change has occurred regarding animal healthcare, just as a change has occurred within human healthcare.

The Member of Parliament is right – an incredible amount has happened in this area in recent years. Then, animal healthcare costs more, considering the advanced technology available, and then one must be able to extract profit for the overhead costs. Otherwise, one must lower the quality. That equation is not so difficult to understand.

Our government has done things over two years. You in the Social Democrats and the green-socialist leadership there sat for an entire mandate period and did nothing. You came up with an investigation that was completed when we took power.

The Member of Parliament says that we have been working for two years and have not achieved anything, but the Member of Parliament can then answer what you did during four years when it comes to the shortage of veterinarians, which I repeatedly stood up and spoke about. My colleagues also stood up and spoke about the shortage of veterinarians. More veterinarian positions and more veterinary nurse positions needed to be created, but none of that happened. In the meantime, animals suffered because emergency services had to close and there was not enough staff to perform the animal healthcare that was required.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! It seems that the member is not listening to what I am saying or is choosing to misinterpret me.

What I am talking about are extortionate prices. I am talking about large profits that are taken out to shareholders. That is what I detest, even in the school – if the school had made a profit that had generated more advanced computers or better school books, that would have been completely fine. It is also completely fine if the large profit leads to being able to X-ray trotters in a more efficient way out at the trot tracks. That is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about are the large profits that disappear away.

Advanced care is very good, but I have also met pet owners who have met animal health personnel and been recommended interventions that they have not been able to withstand. The only thing one wants is for one's animal to survive; anyone understands that. One is prepared to do anything to be able to go home with one's dog or one's cat. I do not want to see a Sweden where veterinarians recommend increasingly advanced procedures to pet owners in order to extract a little extra money to send to their shareholders. That is what I am looking for and want to put my finger on.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this chamber today, the report on better conditions within animal healthcare and animal welfare is being debated. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Sweden has good and robust animal welfare. We have had that for many years. This is also shown very clearly when it comes to how much antibiotics are used in Swedish animal husbandry. Sweden's farmers use the least antibiotics in the entire EU. That is very good. How much is used is one of the most important issues we deal with.

A few years ago, I was in Paris with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. There, they wondered if this was an important issue. Now, everyone has begun to understand that this is a very important issue – perhaps one of the most important we have to deal with moving forward. Sometimes it seems that the politicians want to take the credit, but it is our skilled farmers who should be honored and thanked for it being that way.

Mr. Speaker! We have a major concern that there are too few veterinarians in the country. It is a very important issue, which we heard at the beginning. It is important that it should be possible to get a veterinarian anywhere in the country when an animal becomes sick. The government has allocated money to the district veterinarians, and the government will come with more proposals during the spring to improve this.

I am glad that we have a government that wants to invest in Swedish agriculture with an updated food strategy where increased food production is a core part. We cannot just hope that other countries will help us in a crisis or war situation. We must ourselves ensure that there is food in our granaries. Our country's pantry shall not be half-empty, but it shall bulge with food. There shall be so much that we can also help other countries that need our help.

Sweden has very good conditions for cultivating and producing food. However, over many years back in time, the number of farmers has decreased in large numbers. The number of dairy cows has also decreased. In fact, we in Sweden have never had so few farmers or dairy cows in the country. The government wants to do something about this. We want Swedish agriculture to be profitable and for the competitiveness to be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! That is why the government commissioned the inquiry into animal production with high competitiveness and good animal welfare. It had the former County Governor Elisabeth Nilsson as the investigator. Many good and important proposals were made, for example, to simplify the regulatory framework for the use of medicines for farmers, to make protection hunting easier, and that the state should provide credit guarantees. The question that perhaps became the largest was likely the proposal that dairy cows in loose housing should be exempted from the grazing requirement.

It is no secret that we Christian Democrats trust Sweden's dairy farmers. They, if anyone, know best when the cows should be inside the cowshed and when they should go out. Therefore, flexibility is an important issue for many of Sweden's dairy farmers. It is also important to remember that a barn in the past – for example when my father was a farmer – did not look like it does today, when the milking parlors are bright, large, and have a completely different level of comfort.

Mr. Speaker! During the milk crisis, I asked many questions to the then Minister for Rural Affairs regarding whether we could provide an animal welfare compensation for cows that are culled – just as the milk farmers in Finland receive.

I received the answer that it is not possible when we have a law on grazing requirements. It is impossible. With a changed grazing legislation, it will be possible.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Oscarsson, for the speech!

I think others here in the chamber will take up the grazing requirement, so I will leave that question for now. I do, however, want to say that it is not a matter of us not trusting the farmers, but we also do not see the advantage of lifting the grazing requirement. I also mentioned this in connection with public procurement, where sustainability criteria are an important part. We have had a previous exchange of remarks in the food debate regarding this.

What I want to focus on now is what the member himself is touching upon, namely that we have difficulty establishing new farms. This applies in particular in the northern part of Sweden. This is linked to the availability of veterinarians. I also mentioned in my speech that it is difficult to arrange routine visits, because they need to travel to the most acute cases.

In 2023, the County Administrative Board in Västerbotten wrote a letter to the government sounding the alarm that the entire inland area was left without veterinary services during evenings, nights, and weekends. It is then not so difficult to understand why fewer and fewer farmers choose to establish their operations north of the Dalälven.

It is not only in northern Sweden where things are in crisis. It is also in the southern part of the country, for example in Småland, where many are engaged in animal husbandry. The Swedish Board of Agriculture has just announced that from March 10 of this year, there will no longer be any on-call veterinarian available there. This will, of course, have negative consequences for Swedish agriculture. This should therefore be a priority issue for the government, if one wants to increase food production and reduce vulnerability.

My question to the member is therefore why one chooses not to set requirements for private actors to take greater responsibility when it comes to readiness and on-call duty.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sofia Skönnbrink for the question!

I still have to answer the first part, which concerned public procurement. Just as the member mentioned, we had such a debate some time ago. If we are to briefly address that part, I think it is always important to fact-check such a statement as the member makes in their speech. Even now, the member says that one does not want to buy milk from specific farms if that were the case.

The fact is that 90 percent of all the country's municipalities buy organic milk. When it comes to organic milk, the cows are out. It is a requirement for organic. It is interesting to get facts about this. That is how it looks. Of all those who buy today, 90 percent buy organic. It will still continue. It is interesting.

The member's second question highlights something very important, namely what it looks like in, for example, the northern part. As an example, I can say that the Swedish Board of Agriculture's northernmost office is in Uppsala. This perhaps shows a part of how it has been. Change must happen here. Now, the food strategy has this as a point, i.e., to investigate how we are to get this started in the whole country.

Today, the food supply is too poor in the northern part. It is very sad considering that there is so much arable land and grazing land. We could have much more production.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are still paying off the grazing rights, because that was what the member chose to answer. The member says that one should keep track of the facts. The member himself brings up animal welfare compensation, which is, among other things, requested from the industry, both linked to the EU and internally within Arla. What I have understood is that – because it is already practice in Sweden – it is not guaranteed that the farmers will receive this type of animal welfare compensation from Arla. What I have understood is that they do pay this out to Finnish and Danish farmers. I think that one might have to pull in one's own group.

I return to this issue regarding veterinarians who cannot be reached in time during acute situations. It can lead to emergency slaughter because one has no other choice if help is not received in time. This means a production loss, which is financially significant for a farmer – especially if it affects several animals in the herd or specific key animals.

Veterinary help was also needed in the preventive work; the district veterinarians help our farmers with health monitoring, vaccinations, pregnancy examinations, udder health checks, and so on.

Therefore, I ask again why the government does not want to review the possibility of distributing the responsibility for the veterinary preparedness and the on-call service in a fairer way.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the first question so that we do not lose our way here.

I think that the government is reviewing this. We have a major concern that we must do something about. The last thing I heard was that the government must do everything it can to ensure that there are veterinarians throughout the entire country. That is what I want to say to begin with.

Then I must nevertheless say the following: Those of you who were there in 2014, 2015, or 2016 know that it was very tough at that time, with enormously bad milk prices for the dairy farmers. It was then that we put forward the proposal that, similar to Finland, the state could actually step in and provide support. Then we received the answer from the then Social Democratic minister: It is not possible. We have laws in Sweden, and the grazing requirement is regulated by law. Therefore, we cannot step in and change it and provide support in the form of compensation to Sweden's dairy farmers.

That was the answer I received then. I think: If one were to release this – if one were to do it as we hoped – it would become much simpler to do it as they do in Finland. Finland is also in the EU. In that way, we could therefore provide support if needed and make this more flexible. I believe, in fact, that it is that which is important for our Swedish dairy farmers, that is to say, to feel that there is flexibility in the system and that we trust them. They know best when the cows should be out and when they should be in.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! A hen needs a cage of four square meters to feel well. A guinea pig needs three square meters and a rabbit five square meters. It is larger than a calf's area, one can state. Furthermore, reptiles should not be given live insects because there is a risk of suffering for the insects.

These were the Swedish Board of Agriculture's proposals for new rules for small animals. They arrived last week, approximately at the same time as the government intended to present its food strategy. Now, the proposals have not become reality – not yet, at least – so my question is actually: What do the members think about these proposals?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for your question!

It is very interesting, I think, that the Swedish Board of Agriculture did it in this way. I reacted very strongly, I can say. There are so many who work with this all around Sweden, and there are many who have it as a hobby and so on. I reacted to the way this is talked about. I naturally understand the intention, but it would go very wrong. I also believe that a rabbit would have up to ten square meters – wasn't that so? It was in any case very much, and regardless, I do not think that it is feasible.

I think it is very good that one takes this back and reviews it so that we might get something completely different.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that these rules were a desk product and in some ways very unreasonable. They should only apply to small animals for hobby activities and not to the animals found on our larger farms. They should apply to hens that one has as pets or that perhaps live in a chicken coop on a small scale.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture withdrew the regulatory proposals after pressure from many organizations and after significant criticism on social media. The Centre Party called Minister Kullgren to the committee to answer questions. It is realized that something happened along the way.

The regulatory proposals will, however, return; it is only a matter of time. There, I think we must take into account small-scale production, as it is part of the preparedness and self-sufficiency. We are also dependent on ensuring that our landrace breeds remain. A living countryside increases the understanding of where food comes from, and I think that children and families must be able to live with animals and pets nearby.

What does the member intend to do to ensure that the regulations for small animals in the future are well-founded, well-implementable, and somewhat reasonable?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Stina Larsson, for the questions! I completely agree with you.

I think like this: It is the authorities who do this, and it is very difficult to step in beforehand and think and reflect. As the member was pointing out, there was a lot in social media, and there were many who reached out. It also applies politically; it was not only the member who reached out and thought that this was completely ill-considered, but there were others as well.

I imagine – and still hope – that from the authority's side, one will somehow learn to live a bit more in reality, perhaps. So I think. We shall see what comes, but I have hope that it will at least become much better.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Over the last 25 years, nine out of ten Swedish farms have been discontinued. I believe there is a very broad perception that this is a trend that must be reversed. We need to reverse the trend of farms becoming fewer but larger.

The food strategy has been addressed. It focuses very much on exports. It is not written to reverse the trend and increase the preparedness and self-sufficiency of food. I wonder a bit what measures the government and the member intend to take to truly reverse this trend.

Today, when the food giants and food prices are a very large topic of debate, I think there is reason to review the entire system. Who are those who today face large risks and small margins? Yes, it is the farmers. Who are those who today take very small risks but have very large margins? It is the food giants. I mean that this is a fundamental misconception. I also do not see that this is actually addressed or that realistic proposals are put forward regarding this in the food strategy, which has a one-sided focus on continuing with business as usual and increasing exports.

My question to the member is: What concrete proposals does one intend to take to simply reverse this trend and make it possible for all small-scale farmers in Sweden to survive?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the question!

Yes, we agree on some parts there, Rebecka – including that we have seen a development where there have been fewer dairy farmers, or farms altogether, in our country. I believe that many farmers are nevertheless happy that we in this chamber are talking about this and are interested in how we can improve it. That is what is important after all: How can we improve for Sweden's dairy farmers and for our farmers altogether?

I believe there are some things that are important. Here in the chamber, we usually talk about that profitability must increase. We must also ensure that competitiveness is strengthened and that red tape is reduced. The regulatory burden is mentioned repeatedly when I am out and talking with farmers.

I do not agree, however, that one speaks solely about exports in the food strategy. On the contrary, one actually speaks of three pillars: export, resilience, and Swedish food and gastronomy. Resilience is something that is very important in our time. In my speech, I touched upon how things look now. Today, we cannot provide for our country's inhabitants as we would need to be able to. Therefore, it is good that the government ensures that it works on these issues. Point by point, the government has ensured to provide more support, so that it is possible to put food on the table in a crisis situation. It will take time to build this up, but the journey has at least begun. It actually began in 2017, with the food strategy, and it continues now.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It still feels as though this does not rhyme so well with the proposed measures that are now on the government's table and are to be presented. We have touched upon this previously regarding the grazing rights. The consequence of abolishing this is not that one supports the small-scale farmers, but the risk is that more dairy farms are bought up. This risks distorting the competition for all those farmers who have good animal husbandry and cows that can go out.

The chairman spoke in his address about the pride in Swedish animal welfare legislation when it comes to antibiotics and the like. I think it clashed very poorly with the fact that in the next breath he wanted to back away from the progress that has been made, with the excuse that it would strengthen competitiveness. I think the focus on competitiveness actually does not lead to what we want when we talk about high preparedness and about breaking the trend of farms being closed down in Sweden. One would need to see this from a different perspective.

When it comes to preparedness, one could put forward many more proposals aimed at making a transition from just producing crops and the like to focusing more on plant-based proteins, which are much easier to store in times when we need to increase our food supply. There is quite a lot that I, in all good intentions, would like to send along.

There is a lot of talk about regulatory simplification. Why not develop a package aimed at regulatory simplification for Sweden's farmers, who are already at the forefront of the green transition and who are already working with the environment, climate, and animal welfare?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for your questions!

It was exciting that you brought up regulatory simplifications. I am currently working on such things. Afterwards, we can discuss exactly what you meant – I wasn't quite following, but I would gladly take input from what you said.

The requirement for oats has become a major issue. There are plenty of emotions involved in this. To be honest, I also feel that there is sometimes a rather great lack of knowledge. I wonder how many of them who think so much have actually been out and met dairy farmers in their context, at their farms, with newly built stables and so on. Somewhere one has to start. One can naturally have an opinion, but one needs to have some facts when talking about this.

I hear from various sources that it is much worse when it comes to animal husbandry. On a really warm summer day, the cow does not go out; it does not want to do so. When it is very dirty – when it has rained 30, 40 or 50 millimeters or perhaps even more – it does not go out either. If it goes out, it becomes very dirty. It creates diseases.

We live in different worlds. Somewhere there we must start talking. We may have opinions on what is completely wrong or completely right, but we still must have a factual basis.

The fact is that most will take the cows out. 80–85 percent will continue to want to have the cows out. It is this that we have to talk about. The best thing is to have flexibility and to trust Sweden's farmers.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind the member that we do not use the form of address "du" in the chamber.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report Better conditions within animal health and veterinary care and animal welfare. The Sweden Democrats stand by all of its reservations, but in order to save time, I move for approval of only reservation 35.

This is a comprehensive report containing many different parts concerning animals. I choose to make a few points.

Most people speak of the dog – and also of other pets – as man's best friend. We have a long tradition of pets, and most count them as family members. Owning a pet is a great responsibility, and in that responsibility lies ensuring that the animal receives the care it needs in a timely manner.

In order to be able to make good decisions regarding insurance and care, good information is needed. This applies particularly during acute interventions when one needs to quickly, and often in an emotional situation, make decisions about which care one – with or without insurance – has the possibility to pay for. At the same time, in recent years we have been able to see sharp price increases for veterinary care, which means that many pet owners choose to delay visits to the veterinarian if it is not absolutely necessary.

It is a sad development that many today cannot afford to give their pets the care that is needed. Therefore, it is pleasing that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have tasked the Competition Authority with mapping the price transparency within the veterinary market and investigating how this affects prices and cost developments. The Competition Authority shall also, if necessary, identify if there is information that is not generally available and which could improve price transparency in the veterinary market – for example, information on what different surgical procedures cost – and submit proposals for measures.

Another part of the assignment is to look at the price developments in comparable countries in Europe and to engage in a dialogue with the industry and the insurance companies. One should not have to end up on the brink of ruin because a pet becomes seriously ill or injured.

We Sweden Democrats will follow the developments and intend to investigate other measures to see what can be done in the long term to counter and reduce unjustifiably high costs for veterinary care.

Mr. Speaker! There is a shortage of veterinarians in our country. We need to make it more attractive to become a veterinarian and to work within the agricultural sector. The number of places in veterinary education programs also needs to increase. One way to address the shortage of veterinarians is to give foreign veterinarians the opportunity to establish themselves in Sweden.

It is important that more veterinarians choose to work within the agricultural industries. One solution is that more people with their own experience from livestock production are admitted to the veterinary education. Suggestively, SLU, similar to the medical program, should begin with alternative selection, which would mean that top grades would not be required to train as a veterinarian. Instead, a number of interviews would be conducted. This could be a way in for those interested in animals who lack the grades. We need to think anew to get more veterinarians in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We talk about how much we protect animals in Sweden, and yet we can in all food stores buy foie gras, a product that is produced under appalling conditions. Force-feeding, especially in the production of foie gras, is prohibited in several countries, including Sweden. Despite this, the products can still be sold in Sweden, because the import of animal products produced through force-feeding is permitted. In the production of foie gras, the geese are force-fed daily, and when they are ready for slaughter, their livers have swollen to ten times their normal size. Many geese die before slaughter due to damage to organs or suffocation.

We consider it necessary to work towards an import ban on animals produced through harmful force-feeding. Animals that have been slaughtered without anesthesia or tortured to death in other countries should not be allowed to be sold in Sweden. Sweden's government should work internationally to ban the production of foie gras and other forms of force-feeding, and an import ban should be introduced to put pressure on other countries. Until the sale of such food ceases in Sweden, the government should work towards clear labeling of these products to alert the consumer to the production method.

Mr. Speaker! Animals cannot advocate for themselves, which makes them dependent on us humans and our goodwill. Therefore, it is important that the work with animals and the handling of crimes against animals is carried out in a correct and efficient manner. Unfortunately, this type of work often requires both resources and special expertise that are uncommon within the regular police organization.

In Stockholm, there is Sweden's only special animal welfare police, and it is positive that there is at least one such. But there is a great need to take a collective national grip and ensure the supply of competence regarding animal welfare within the police. In order to create the conditions for a higher level of competence within animal welfare, it needs to be ensured that animal welfare becomes a mandatory part of regular police training – this for the purpose of strengthening the supply of competence within the police in the area.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Few of us have missed the reporting on aggressive dogs and the increased number of dog attacks in Sweden. Most recently, I read about a dog in Forshaga that had attacked a police officer. Fortunately, the police officer was not seriously injured, but we know that attacks with fatal outcomes have occurred, which is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of avoiding these dog attacks is that our authorities have sufficient powers to act so that aggressive dogs can be seized in time. Another important part is being able to issue animal bans, among other things against the irresponsible breeders, not infrequently with criminal connections, who make quick money at the expense of the animals. Several of us here have surely seen the Kalla f documentary where it is revealed that dogs are marketed as killing machines.

Mr. Speaker! Taking a harder line against organized crime is usually a priority for the Sverigedemokraterna. Therefore, it was very surprising to read that you propose that decisions on animal bans should be moved to the courts. It would mean that the county administrative boards lose one of their most important tools for being able to handle serious animal welfare cases and reach unserious actors. The member correctly says that animals cannot advocate for themselves. Therefore, the county administrative boards need proper tools to be able to act if animals are subjected to mismanagement or neglect.

Can the member explain why it is a good idea to move decisions on animal bans to the court?

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Just as the member says, there is a major problem with the breeding of a certain type of dogs. Dog smuggling is also a major problem. Here we need to implement more measures. Far too many dogs suffer due to how they enter our country.

When it comes to the respective powers of the county administrative boards and the courts, one has to look a bit closer at that. The most important thing, however, is to get rid of the dog smuggling. Now that dog smugglers are being discovered at the border, primarily at the Öresund Bridge and at Helsingör–Helsingborg, the dogs are taken care of, which unfortunately often results in them being euthanized, while the smuggler is sent back across the border. But one should also seize the vehicle itself that the dogs have been transported in, because that would pose a greater risk for the dog smugglers. Now they get rid of the dogs but travel back to other countries, continue to breed these dogs, and then transport them under appalling conditions to Sweden.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Dog smuggling is another important issue that has not received much space in today's debate. I have myself had an interpellation debate with the Minister for Rural Affairs on this.

I return, however, to the question of animal bans and that the Sweden Democrats want the courts to make decisions in these types of cases. I mean that this is completely the wrong way to go. Animal bans are issued when everything else one has tried does not work, for example, reprimands and orders with a fine. Animal bans are issued very rarely. They can be issued to persons who neglect animals or, in the most egregious way, do not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Placing this on the courts would delay the process and potentially lead to even more suffering for the animals.

The Chairman says that the Sweden Democrats want to get at the unserious breeders. These breeders often breed for extremely high fighting spirit. That alone is a violation of the Animal Welfare Act, because it must not occur in Sweden.

I still do not understand why the Sweden Democrats choose to propose a relocation of animal bans to court, as it impairs the authorities' ability to act in these types of cases.

(Applause)

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have seen that it perhaps has not worked so well. We all know that the county administrative boards are overloaded and have supervision over very many animal welfare cases. That instead shifting this to the courts can be another way to go, and sometimes one may perhaps have to try new paths to achieve better results.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have a long tradition of safeguarding animal welfare, and we should be proud of that. We have one of the world's strongest animal welfare legislations, and we know that good animal welfare goes hand in hand with a well-functioning and patient-safe animal healthcare.

But we face challenges. Access to veterinary services varies in the country, the workload for animal health personnel is high, and the supervision of the operations needs to be tightened. The government's proposal in the bill that we are now debating aims to create better conditions to ensure good and safe animal healthcare throughout the country.

In the proposition, it is established that protected titles shall only be used by persons who have the correct education and meet the requirements of the law. Those who lack authorization shall not be able to use titles that can be confused with these. It is about safeguarding quality and trust and the animals' right to professional care.

After many years as an inspector at the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, that is, the authority that exercises supervision over human care – the care that we humans receive, where I worked with issues concerning licensed health and medical personnel – I know how important this is. It is an important tool to protect patients, in this case the animals and the animal owners.

One must protect them from charlatans, because there are tricksters who claim to have a certain competence or a certain education but who actually do not have it. It does not happen so often and is not particularly common, but when it does happen, it causes great patient harm. It is also harmful to the trust in the system. Therefore, a system with protected titles is important.

One more thing that I want to address and that has been raised earlier in this debate is the price increases that I believe every pet owner is aware of. It has become incredibly expensive to visit the veterinarian. This is an issue that we within the government cooperation are discussing. There is a commitment even among us, just as there is among the opposition.

That is why the government earlier in March tasked the Competition Authority with mapping the price transparency within veterinary care. The Competition Authority shall analyze the issue and carry out an investigation with a focus on the prices for veterinary care regarding companion animals throughout the country and so on. This is important to get a picture of how the situation looks. The assignment shall be reported in March 2026. It is important that things are done properly, and as is known, it often takes time.

Mr. Speaker! I could speak for a long time about the bill we are debating here today, but in order to have time to say everything I want to say, I shall quickly move on to another issue that has been raised here today, namely the grazing requirement.

Spring's cow release is approaching. Soon, one will be able to see cows dancing out all over our elongated country – out into the fields, out onto green grass – after a winter indoors. It is a wonderful sign of spring. Since 1988, all dairy cows in Sweden have been allowed to stay outdoors and graze on green grass for at least six hours per day during the summer. This is important because mouths that are created to graze must be allowed to do so.

Now, thoughts are being aired about once again confining the cows to make livestock farming more profitable. That would be completely the wrong way to go, according to us in the Liberals. That all Swedish dairy cows are allowed to be out grazing green grass in a natural environment and have an outlet for their natural behaviors is a quality stamp for Swedish agriculture.

Without the farmers' responsibility and consideration for the animals, the meat and dairy products would suffer from a bitter aftertaste. If we remove the grazing requirement, we weaken the agriculture's position rather than strengthen it, especially against foreign competition. Swedish milk and Swedish meat are synonymous with healthy animals that are well cared for and that get to graze outdoors. Our ambitious Swedish animal welfare rules result in higher production costs – absolutely – but it must cost for the animals to be well. My view is that many consumers are willing to pay more for the Swedish milk and the Swedish meat.

That the grazing requirement is an important issue, we received proof of here in the Riksdag yesterday when we received a petition with nearly 140,000 signatures; I do not remember the exact figure. Attempting to increase competitiveness by weakening animal welfare would come at a high price. It would be completely the wrong way to go. Instead of lowering Swedish requirements, we must raise the minimum standard across the entire EU. That would also make the policy fairer for Swedish farmers. Abolishing the grazing requirement is actually nothing other than a false competitive advantage for the large units. The large will become larger and the small fewer.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals have for decades worked for stronger animal protection for all animals on European farms. The Liberal MEP Marit Paulsen successfully led the work at one time to achieve a common European animal protection law for reduced antibiotic use and increased animal welfare. She gave us a minimum standard for how animals may be treated in Europe. But the work must continue. No cow has chosen its existence. It is actually we who have done that to it. We have chosen to keep cows because they give us milk and meat. We have a responsibility for the animals we breed. They need to have an outlet for their natural behaviors. Cows must be allowed to graze.

We Liberals will continue to fight to raise the minimum level of animal welfare. Here, the EU needs to become more like Sweden. The Liberals want stronger animal welfare throughout the EU. It is going very slowly, so we must push forward. For us, it is a matter of course that all cows should be allowed to graze outdoors, both in Sweden and in the rest of Europe.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the investigation report with proposals for abolished grazing requirements is now out for consultation. Then the issue shall be handled within the government cooperation. My and the Liberals' position on the issue is known. Our message is clear: We will fight to ensure that the proposal for abolished grazing requirements does not become a reality. We stand up for the cows' right to pasture.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We stand behind much in the bill that the Member and the Government have presented. There are good investments in the veterinarians that will make it easier for us to help our animals and animal owners.

Member of Parliament Nilsson and the Liberals have recently been beating their breasts and consider themselves the cows' protectors, as they want to assert the grazing rights at all costs. But the grazing rights also have their downsides. Now during the spring, it has been established that the cases of blue tongue have increased sharply in Sweden. It is an infection that spreads via biting midges when the cows go out. After last summer's insect bites, it now shows itself in the form of malformed calves, which sometimes are born with a half brain. Many animals must be culled, which is a tragedy for the animal owners and the entire herd.

What do the members and the government think we should do to reduce this infection and help the farmers?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

It is truly a tragedy both for the animals and for the farmers who are affected. This is an issue that we need to attach great importance to handling. I am not briefed in detail on exactly what is done to combat blue tongue, but it is clear that increased flexibility may be needed when it comes to whether the animals must be kept out or in. It is actually the animals' welfare that must come first.

The investigation report that has been presented and which I mentioned in my speech unfortunately contains proposals where there is no flexibility but only either/or, which in my opinion is a shortcoming. But it is absolutely a matter that can continue to be discussed.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I share the member's view that greater flexibility and local considerations regarding weather, wetness in fields, and other conditions are needed. If I could wish for one thing, it would be that the Swedish Board of Agriculture, instead of prioritizing the size of cages for hobby chickens, prioritizes developing a vaccination program, finding routines for sampling, finding staff who can support the veterinarians, and seeing how one can achieve the smoothest possible management for culling and carcass handling.

But this costs money. There are demands and proposals that the government should provide around 100 million kronor to the over 400 crews, especially in southern and western Sweden, where there are confirmed cases. It is a substantial cost that has been calculated.

My questions are: How does the member view this amount? Is the government prepared to provide these funds to ensure that these farmers, who today face tough conditions, will be able to manage the infection and handle bluetongue moving forward?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

I truly agree that this is an issue that the Swedish Board of Agriculture should prioritize. The Board should focus on how it can support the farmers who are affected, but also on how it can work more preventatively.

Vaccination is of course an important part of this, but as I have understood it, there is no vaccine where it is sufficient to give an animal only once, but one must vaccinate every year. It is something that it would really be worth to review. Is it possible to support, prioritize, or speed up the work of developing a vaccine where it is sufficient to give the animal once for it to receive lifelong protection? It would also save a lot of money.

The Chairman mentioned the hobby chickens and the discussion that was held two weeks ago regarding the Swedish Board of Agriculture's new recommendations, guidelines, or whatever it was. I think it is good that a review is being made. It was a long time since the last one, and much has happened. We are not going to stand here and point fingers when it comes to what an agency does, and the Minister absolutely must not do that – that is important.

But one can still have some thoughts and opinions about this. It is good that the Swedish Board of Agriculture has taken back the issue and is reviewing it to investigate if one can end up at a more reasonable level. There were very large expansions in some parts, while at the same time I had wished that the Swedish Board of Agriculture had gone further in others.

I personally – this is not my party's opinion – actually do not think that one should have tropical birds in cages in Sweden. They should be able to fly freely in the Amazon; that is where they have it best.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will take the liberty of addressing what Member Oscarsson said about how it sometimes seems as if we have not been out and seen any dairy farms.

Two of my closest friends are dairy farmers. I have worked on a dairy farm, and I have also been out and inspected a number of farms. One can state that it is not always very high ceilings with good light penetration and brushes that run 24/7, but it looks very different. If one were to draw a parallel, Mr. Speaker, one could say that there is everything from expensive Hilton hotels to cheap hostels. That is precisely why I am skeptical about exempting all dairy cows in loose housing, just as MP Elin Nilsson said.

Let me return to our exchange. I am very pleased that the Liberals as a party and the member themselves are coming forward and standing up for the Swedish cross's right to graze. It is very important. Yesterday, we received the signatures for Djurens Rätt from the campaign I want to graze. 165,076 unique individuals have signed the petition. That says quite a lot.

This shows that this is an important issue not only for the animals but also for us who live here in Sweden. We care about how our animals are doing, and many of us think that cows should be allowed to go out in the summer to graze and move freely. It is about animal welfare for real.

But I am also worried, because even though the Liberals say that you will stand up for the cows' right to graze, you are also the smallest party in the government support. The Christian Democrats are, as we know, opponents of the grazing right, and they hold the position of Minister for Rural Affairs.

My question therefore is: If the government moves forward with this type of proposal which entails abolished grazing rights for all cows in free-roaming, what will the Liberals do? Will you stand up for the cows even if it means that you have to go against your coalition partners?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

Here we truly share the same position in our fight to ensure that cows can continue to go out to pasture. Just like the member, I have been out on a number of site visits. During the year, I have visited barns from Skåne in the south to Boden in the north, where I was a couple of weeks ago. There, they also have milk production. There are very different conditions in different parts of the country. What unites them is the strength and the will to have a sustainable agriculture, and they struggle on with the conditions that are given.

The fertilizer requirement always comes up when one is out and discussing things. I usually say: We may not think exactly alike, but for us, this is important. Then most farmers say: We are still going to let out our cows.

But just as the member says, there are very different levels of the grazing stalls. If there had been the same fantastic level everywhere, it would have been easier to understand why the abolished grazing requirement is being proposed. But that is not taken into account at all in the investigation, which I think is a shortcoming. I would have hoped for that even though we would still have stood up for a preserved grazing requirement.

But now it is what it is. Our no is sharp. At the same time, this is an issue that will be negotiated and discussed in the government cooperation, as is done in all collaborations. Just as I said earlier, we liberals are however very clear in our message: We want the grazing requirement to be preserved, and we will do everything we can to ensure that so happens.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer!

We can take the opportunity to clarify that it is not everyone in the industry who is negatively disposed towards the grazing requirement. People will continue to put the cows out on pasture, and they have solved it by spreading out the fields where the cows are to be kept. They have bought up different types of areas to make it possible, and they drive the cows out with tractors and other means to reach the grazing lands. It is therefore possible to solve, and there are many who want to do so.

I hear what the member says. We can hope that one chooses to back down on the proposal because it, as I said in my speech, is not supported by scientific studies. I also believe that the opposition will be very strong. I just mentioned the name signatures, and we know that there are many proponents of that line across the country who will respond to the referral.

We must keep our fingers crossed that this does not proceed, because I do not believe that people are aware of what consequences it will have. This applies in particular to public procurement, where the domestic requirement is an important tool to be able to prioritize Swedish products over foreign ones.

Could we still expect the Liberals to choose to vote against that type of proposal?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

To be blunt: We are loyal to the government cooperation. Our battles take place at the Government Offices and in the cooperation we have here in the Riksdag. Then we negotiate, and so we arrive at an answer. Then we are loyal to that and vote as the government cooperation has arrived at.

But before one gets there, very tough negotiations, many discussions, and pushing and pulling of everything take place, which ensures that in all issues one eventually lands on something that everyone can stand behind. In this issue, we stand in different places, but the goal is still to arrive at something that everyone is satisfied with.

This is an important issue for us liberals, and we have a high turnout here. I hope that it sends a signal to our coalition partners about how important the issue is for us. It is important precisely because it is so important for the well-being of the cows.

If the grazing requirement is abolished, many cows will still get to go out – absolutely. But there will also be cows that never get to see daylight, feel the sun's rays and graze on green grass because they instead stay indoors. That is not what we want, and it is not the image we want to give of Sweden. It is also my view that a majority of the Swedish people do not want it that way.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would really like to thank Member Nilsson for the clarity and for clear decisions that hold over time.

We from Miljöpartiet and I personally know how difficult it can be as a smaller party to have tough negotiations with larger parties where one does not really share the same basic values. However, it matters. The 165,076 names matter. What is said and the positions that are established in this debate matter.

We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that politics is to want, to want something together, to want something clearly and to have a direction. I want with this to give all credit to the member for having clearly manifested this and wish all the best.

The members of the committee represent a liberal party that is very pro-EU. Sometimes we get a bit distracted: That one, we'll handle at the EU level. There are quite a few issues where the EU machinery moves slowly, while the issues are extremely urgent – issues where science is at a loss and where public opinion manifests clearly. I mean that animal welfare is absolutely one such issue. Here, the commission has truly disappointed many, including me.

I would like to ask the member what proposals she has and how she is pushing to raise animal welfare throughout the EU and to ensure that the Swedish farmers, who have higher welfare for their animals, actually become winners in this, both economically and competitively.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rebecka Le Moine partly for the co-submission and the congratulations, and partly for the questions.

As Liberals, we place great confidence in EU cooperation. Historically, the EU has delivered major progress regarding animal welfare. Common frameworks have been established that have resulted in significant improvements for animals within the union. I do, however, share the view that this last mandate period was a bit of a shame. It went very slowly. The Commission did not deliver what it promised. Something diluted was produced that was far from what we as a party wanted to see.

Now, a commission for animal rights or animal welfare – I am not entirely sure of the title – has been appointed, who will be responsible for animal welfare issues. It remains to be seen what that person will deliver and how biased the commissioner is by coming from Hungary, which perhaps is not at the forefront when it comes to animal welfare within the cooperation.

What we do at home is to keep the issue alive. We highlight that strong animal welfare in Sweden is a competitive advantage not only for Sweden against the European market but also for the EU as a whole against other countries it trades with. It is something that consumers demand. It is also strongly linked to the environmental issue, which is also important and where the EU has a high level of commitment.

There are, therefore, many ways to exert influence.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, member!

As mentioned earlier, there were quite high hopes that the EU and the Commission would go further. This is based on the fact that more than a million Europeans signed a petition to launch a citizens' initiative, as it is called.

Part of this is about cage keeping. I think that with this intention and very clear manifestation, one could go further with this in the member states. In Sweden, the government has actually taken measures in a good way regarding the mink, but there are also cage-housed chickens that still do not have the possibility to perform their natural behaviors. Here, one could perhaps move forward faster nationally than what the EU machinery is currently capable of. In many other countries in Europe, one has already succeeded in going further and phasing out cage keeping of chickens.

I also have another and more concrete question regarding EU cooperation. Does the member think it would be good if the EU could have more sanctions against countries where there are obvious deficiencies and which the EU's animal welfare audit directs sharp criticism towards? We from Miljöpartiet at least advocate that goods from countries where this has been established should not have access to the EU's open market but instead should remain within the country where they are produced. There must be a trust in and a guarantee that we succeed in maintaining the high standards that we have nevertheless managed to achieve.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! That we will soon see the last mink farm in Sweden close is fantastic. It is something that both our parties have fought for for a long time. I am very proud and happy to be part of a government cooperation that ensures this happens. It is an important first step.

I personally absolutely believe that one should review the existence of caged chickens. All animals should have the right to perform their natural behaviors and live under tolerable conditions as far as possible. We have a responsibility towards the animals we keep.

I also wanted to respond a bit more on what we do to influence the EU cooperation. We have quite a lot of contact with other liberal parties in other EU countries. This is an issue that I would like to take the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues out in Europe, both in the European Parliament and in various member states, in order to in that way create a greater consensus and achieve greater momentum in the issues. It is an important tool for creating opinion.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Taking your pet to the veterinarian is expensive and has become increasingly more expensive in recent years. According to an investigation conducted by an insurance company last year, the price for an average injury to a cat had increased by an average of 25–55 percent between 2018 and 2023.

The transparency regarding what an operation or treatment costs is very deficient. It is only after it has been performed that the animal owner receives the bill and can actually know what the cost amounts to.

A so-called reference price list needs to be introduced where animal owners can see and compare prices for different treatments. This is something that we in Vänsterpartiet propose. I therefore want to move for approval of reservation 2 in the committee report, which deals precisely with that.

A reference price list is a good way to increase transparency but does not fully address the unreasonable price increases created by the oligopoly. Therefore, further steps need to be taken to improve competition and bring down prices.

Mr. Speaker! Veterinary costs have increased across the entire country but at the same time differ depending on where in Sweden one lives. These prices must come down, and they must become more uniform in the country.

We also want to investigate the possibility of national tariffs, where the responsible authority is tasked with establishing fixed prices in veterinary care. Germany already has a system with tariffs, and what we want to see in Sweden is something similar.

Mr. Speaker! That two actors dominate the veterinary market is a market failure. Today's oligopoly needs to be broken up. We therefore propose that a market investigation tool be introduced that gives the Competition Authority the opportunity to identify and address structural problems in markets where competition functions poorly – in this case, the veterinary market.

Mr. Speaker! The welfare of animals is a fundamental value in our society. That our animals should be allowed to live under conditions that respect their natural needs and behaviors is something that most of us agree on.

In Sweden, we have had the law on grazing rights for cattle since the 1980s. But now it is being threatened by the government. What does the law mean? Yes, that all cattle over six months old, except for bulls, shall be able to go out to pasture during the summer. If one has seen cows on pasture during the summer, one understands that it is an important part of their natural behavior. Research has also concluded that cows feel better when they can go out. The cows' health improves in a number of ways. They get better hoof health and bone health as well as a reduced occurrence of inflammations. Cows are animals that are adapted for grazing. If a cow is not allowed to graze, it feels poorly. It is no more difficult than that.

The grazing rights act was part of the new animal welfare act that came in 1988 after a campaign led by the author Astrid Lindgren, who was strongly engaged in animal rights issues.

The Animal Welfare Act states that animals shall be kept in such a way that they can behave naturally. It would be to go in the completely opposite direction if we abolished the grazing requirement. The food wholesalers argue that an abolished grazing requirement prevents the sale of Swedish beef within the public sector. They argue that the right to graze is crucial to being able to serve Swedish meat in our schools and in our hospitals. Grazing operations are used to a large extent as a sustainability criterion in public procurement.

Mr. Speaker! I am sure that the cows want to keep the grazing requirement, and so do more than 160,000 engaged people who signed a petition that was handed over to the Riksdag yesterday. We in Vänsterpartiet want to keep the grazing requirement. It benefits both nature and the small and medium-sized dairy farms that are important to protect today, not least for reasons of preparedness. Grazing animals are of great importance for biodiversity. We are for a system that guards the cows' right to graze outdoors and that those who extend the grazing period can receive good compensation. We want the farmers who have natural grazing lands with grazing animals to receive one hundred percent cost coverage, which they do not have today.

Mr. Speaker! In 2019, Sweden received a new animal welfare act. The new law contains, above all, clear provisions on what should be considered natural behavior for an animal kept in captivity and that the animals shall be given the opportunity to act based on that behavior. Despite this, Sweden continues to allow hens to be kept in cages for egg production. All too often we read about poor conditions within the Swedish chicken industry. The provisions of the Animal Welfare Act regarding the animals' right to natural behavior are obviously not sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, a systematic animal cruelty is currently taking place in several of Sweden's chicken factories. There are audits of the breeding in the Swedish chicken industry where it is revealed that a company has continued to spin and trample to death animals that were conscious, despite the county administrative board having pointed out deficiencies.

The organization Djurens Rätt has conducted a mapping of inspections carried out at the country's four largest chicken factories. The mapping shows major deficiencies. There are problems with crushed wings and heads, high mortality during transport, as well as corrosion damage from feces leading to flayed skin down to the musculature. This entails great suffering because the chickens are in such a dirty environment that they suffer injuries under their feet. But they are still transported to the slaughterhouse where they are then forced to sit in transport cages for several hours.

Another problem is broiler chickens. These are chickens bred to develop large breast muscles for meat production as quickly as possible. Their slaughter age is normally 35 days, but they grow so fast that they experience pain, become ill, and often die prematurely. These were some examples of what occurs today within the Swedish chicken industry.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the prevailing conditions within the Swedish chicken industry must be addressed as soon as possible. And the failings that have been highlighted regarding animal welfare indicate that the problem is structural. It is therefore not enough that responsible managers at the exposed companies resign.

In our budget, we have proposed an increased appropriation of 100 million kronor to expand the county administrative boards' animal welfare inspections. It is a step in the right direction to strengthen animal welfare within the chicken industry, but it is not enough. Stronger requirements for better conditions are also needed. This could be that the chickens should have access to a larger area, a ban on battery cages, improved stunning methods, and improved opportunities for natural behavior and outdoor access.

Vänsterpartiet considers that it is high time that Sweden now takes steps for strengthened animal welfare and a reduced industrial chicken production. The government needs to address the problems and sufferings that become increasingly clearer with each passing year through practical action. We consider that it is high time to improve the animal welfare policy so that it is based to a greater extent on respect for the animals.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Kajsa Fredholm for her speech.

I listened to the member, and much of it was negative. I do not understand how it can be as bad as the member says. I know, and the member surely knows too, that there are inspectors who look closely at how animal welfare is functioning, especially regarding chicken production.

Does the member not trust the inspectors who conduct inspections at the farmers? The member paints an extremely negative picture, and I would therefore like to hear if the member trusts the inspectors.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I "pinpointed" some problems. On the whole, I can agree that compared to the EU, we have it surprisingly well.

I was asked whether I trust the inspectors or not. But that is not the problem. Controls have been carried out, and it has been shown in mapping – which is available online – that there are problems at the four largest chicken factories. I naturally trust the inspectors. What I am saying here is what the inspectors have concluded. I absolutely trust them.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I still think it becomes a bit strange. The member paints a very dark picture and that these chicks are suffering something terrible.

We have a system in our country with inspectors who are out and reviewing this. If there is any problem, for example with loading in the chicken houses, they say so, and then the farmers rectify it.

When I listened to the member, it almost felt as if they are doing something semi-criminal. It was a very dark picture. Therefore, I felt compelled to respond. I hope the member does not have such a negative view of Swedish chicken production. It is, in fact, very important for our country.

If it were as the member has seen, on the internet and everything the member said, I think the member should contact farmers who are doing this. They can give a good picture of how it looks. And if it were as bad as the member is suggesting, it would still become a court case. We do have such a system. Nothing should go under the radar. Matters are resolved on-site and we have a good relationship with our producers. It is very important to highlight that.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now it became a bit the same. It is not that I do not trust the controllers or most farmers. What I criticized was the poultry industry.

When it concerns four large producers in the country, the county administrative boards have concluded that there are such terrible conditions as those I highlighted. They have, as far as I have read, checked three to four years back, and the same type of problems recur every year. There are, therefore, things that need to be addressed there. It would be good if the member took that to heart.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Last weekend I visited my friend and her family. The family has 24 hens and roosters that live in the old playhouse in the garden. It is the son, Hugo, who is responsible for the hens. During the weekend, when I was there, it blew heavily. One could say it was a storm in Skåne. The hens had not taken shelter in the playhouse during the evening, and when we were going to check on them, about ten were sitting in shelter behind the fence. Hugo and I caught and carried them in one by one. They are fine, large and heavy ornamental hens that weigh two to three kilos each. They came into their playhouse where they have plenty of fine perches and nesting boxes. They provide plenty of eggs that cover the needs of the family and the neighbors. I can state that these hens are doing well.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture does not think so, Mr. Speaker. The Swedish Board of Agriculture recently withdrew its proposal for new space regulations for those who keep, for example, chickens as pets or as a hobby activity. The proposal implied drastically increased requirements for both indoor and outdoor areas. These rules would therefore apply to chickens and other small animals kept as pets or as a hobby activity, nothing else.

The background to the withdrawal was extensive criticism from animal owners. Even we in the Center Party were critical of the proposal. We therefore called the responsible minister, Peter Kullgren, to the Riksdag's Committee on Environment and Agriculture so that he could explain himself. Fortunately, he did not need to come.

How could it go so wrong? The Swedish Board of Agriculture justified the change by stating that there is no economic consideration to take into account when it comes to specifically hobby and companion chickens, in contrast to the chickens kept within large-scale operations for egg and meat production. I believe that it is a simplified way of looking at the matter.

Regarding the proposal that is to be reviewed again, we want the government to clarify to the Swedish Board of Agriculture that they cannot focus blindly on meters and centimeters but must be able to look at the bigger picture. We need fewer rules, not more, to enable hobby and companion animals.

Firstly, the Swedish Board of Agriculture needs to consider that the new regulatory framework must not undermine the valuable conservation work being carried out in Sweden for older Swedish landrace breeds, for example, the Skåne hen.

Secondly, the government and the Swedish Board of Agriculture need to realize that the global situation has changed drastically and that small-scale and decentralized food production is a part of Sweden's food preparedness. It is better for the state to invest in ensuring there are living chickens in residential areas than to spend billions on storing canned food.

For the third, the government needs to take a stand for the living countryside, public health, and the understanding of where food comes from. Too few children have heard a rooster crow or had the chance to pick a freshly laid egg from the nest. A Sweden where there is only room for identical white eggs in the packages is a poorer Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! At approximately the same time as I visited Hugo's hens, the joint draft of the report on animal welfare during transport in the EU was being discussed. But many of the more controversial parts of the EU Commission's proposal, such as transport times, temperatures, and space, were completely missing.

The European Commission announced in 2020 that they planned a review of animal welfare legislation and that proposals for amended rules for, among other things, slaughter and cage housing would be presented. Almost nothing came of this. So far, only proposals on animal transport and rules for the conditions of dogs and cats have been submitted.

The rapporteurs agree that all animal transports shall have a GPS system and that the transporters shall undergo training to be permitted to drive animals. However, there are no amendments for many parts of the EU Commission's proposal where the rapporteurs have not been able to reach an agreement, for example regarding how many transport hours shall be allowed, what temperature conditions shall prevail during transport, how much space the animals shall have when they are transported, and whether animals shall also continue to be able to be transported to countries outside the EU. It is therefore much lower requirements than we have for animal transports in Sweden.

This is what the government should focus its energy on. In the negotiations, the government should ensure that it emphasizes animal welfare and high requirements, for the sake of the animals and so that we get equal conditions. We have also conveyed this in deliberations with the government.

We will have to see how it turns out. Other Members of the European Parliament in the agriculture committee and the transport committee have until April 10 to submit amendments to the draft report. Parliament plans to vote on its position on the European Commission's proposal in October 2025, so in the autumn.

Mr. Speaker! The European animal welfare rules must be tightened. Sweden is a role model in this context. But for fair competition in the internal market and for the welfare of the animals, an update is required that modernizes and tightens the EU's requirements. Such a tightening should, among other things, involve a ban on housing animals in cages. This applies in particular to hens.

Overall, the requirements for animal welfare and environmental considerations within animal husbandry should be raised to the Swedish level. Sweden has long been a step ahead, and it is important for both the agricultural sector's competitive conditions and for the animals that the rest of the EU catches up. It concerns everything from introducing a ban on routine tail docking of pigs to ensuring that transports of animals to slaughter do not have to take more than eight hours. Strengthened joint efforts should also be made to manage and prevent the spread of infectious animal diseases, for example, African swine fever.

In order for this to be prioritized, a commissioner with responsibility for animal welfare issues is needed, stricter EU rules, better follow-up of the rules, and an increased focus on these issues. Therefore, I want to move for approval of reservation 13. That is where we can make the most difference for the animals.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Board of Agriculture is also doing many very good things. The management of the African swine fever among wild boar in Fagersta has been exemplary. Together with the municipality, civil society, the landowners, the hunters, and the veterinarians, they have successfully managed to eliminate this infection in an efficient manner – exactly according to the rulebook.

Now, however, a new infection is underway. During the first months of this year, the viral disease blåtunga has affected more and more farmers in southwestern Sweden. According to the State Veterinary Medicine Institute, over 400 herds have been affected.

Bluetongue is primarily transmitted via midges during the summer half-year, and now the consequences of infection spread during last summer are visible. This manifests primarily in the form of calves being born with various types of malformations, including of the brain. This means that in many cases the animals are not viable and must be culled.

In addition to the emotional suffering for the farmer, there is also a tangible economic impact. It concerns partly the loss of animals, and partly the cost for vaccination, sampling, veterinary visits, culling, and carcass management – in an industry that already has small margins and which is extremely important for Sweden's preparedness.

From the farmers' side, a clear strategy is now being requested on how the infection is to be countered and how the costs are to be distributed. Proposals have been made that the government should provide around 100 million kronor to cover costs for vaccination and testing. Based on how the spread of infection occurs, there may also be reason to decide on exemptions from the current grazing requirements ahead of the upcoming summer season. The question is what the responsible authorities and the government are doing to resolve the situation.

Mr. Speaker! This is not an isolated case. Infections and diseases are something we must live with. But there is clearly more: poultry affected by avian influenza and horses affected by equine influenza, parvovirus or, as is now the case in Skåne, a form of coronavirus. Riding schools and stables have had to cancel competitions and other activities.

The district veterinarians have a great responsibility in most places. It is good that the government is now enabling more veterinarians in Sweden. I am pleased that the government has listened to several of our proposals, such as allowing records in English and having cooperation with veterinarians from other Nordic countries.

It is the infections and the systematic work that the government and the Swedish Board of Agriculture should focus on, with routines and tools to curb infections and with a vaccination program for bluetongue instead of out-of-touch rules such as that a guinea pig must have a cage of at least three square meters.

There is no doubt that we constantly need to work to improve animal welfare and animal health. But we must not allow ourselves to become one-sided or end up in a situation where we sieve mosquitoes and swallow camels. The government can do a lot to ensure that more animals have it well, especially in the EU, instead of focusing on the number of square meters for Hugo's hens.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have debated animal welfare. At the beginning of my speech, I would like to highlight how the Green Party views matters. We are a party built on three solidarities: solidarity with all people, solidarity with all animals, and solidarity with all nature, now and for the future. With that said, we do not see animals as things but as living beings. We talk about animal welfare, which means not only how we can limit the harm and suffering for animals but also how we can ensure that they are given the best lives possible.

Mr. Speaker! Every year, more than 100 million animals are killed in Swedish slaughterhouses. It is clear that we shall apply our relatively strong animal welfare legislation in Sweden and be proud of it. We shall also fight to ensure that the ambitions and the legislation move in a direction that improves animal welfare. But ultimately, it is also about the fact that these animals' lives are in our hands.

I want to begin at that end. If we truly want to reduce suffering and death, we must actually make a shift in how we consume. For several different reasons, animal consumption must decrease. It is, of course, about the suffering and death for the animals, but it is also about the climate and biodiversity. Raising these animals takes up a very large area, and that area may not always be located in Sweden. This is a major problem, and I want to address it at the beginning of my speech.

Mr. Speaker! Astrid Lindgren is a beloved author who has left a mark on a number of different subjects in Sweden. One issue that she fought for was the health and welfare of animals. The law on the grazing requirement that we have debated came about thanks to the active work of people who protested, people like Astrid Lindgren. Had she known that the government 37 years later would consider backing away from this law and animal welfare, I believe she would have been one of those who raised her voice. I believe she would have joined the 165,076 people who have signed to manifest their opposition and urge us politicians and decision-makers: Do not back away from animal welfare! Do not back away from the grazing rights!

With that said, I still want to instill some hope. It has actually happened that people like Astrid Lindgren, together with others, have expressed their will and used their voices for those who lack a voice in our democracy: the animals. This has led to historical improvements for animal welfare. I want to remind everyone of that, both everyone who is here and is in some way responsible for the direction we take in the legislation for animals, and everyone else who has become involved. Some of them have signed their names. Some have raised the issue, shared information, and spread knowledge. Some work in organizations that have collaborated in civil society to ensure that the issue does not go under the radar. There is hope and opportunity for change, and change we make together.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to move for the approval of reservation 20, which Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have jointly submitted. It is not only about defending the right of pasture but also about broadening it. I can understand that this may seem very visionary in the times we live in. But I believe that it is precisely in dark times, when we must constantly stand up and defend our fundamental values, that we can also need to lift our gaze and dare to envision. Our proposal simply goes out on that more animals should be able to have the right to be outdoors. It is about bulls, pigs, and chickens that we believe should be given the right to graze, root, and peck.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, many farmers and food producers are struggling with all-too-small margins and shaky economics. It is those who produce food who take large risks but have small margins. The opposite situation applies to the food giants, who take very small risks but have enormous margins. This, Mr. Speaker, is an unfair and vulnerable system that leads to depleted ecosystems, pressured animal welfare and, ultimately, in the worst cases, closed farms. Farms are being bought up. The farms are becoming fewer but larger in Sweden.

I understand that many in this economic situation have difficulty voting according to their values when they choose between different options in the grocery store. It is the wallet that one votes with, and many choose based on the comparison price rather than the origin of the goods. One can choose to buy Swedish-produced goods. One can also choose to buy imported goods that have been produced in such a way that it would have violated our laws if it had occurred here in Sweden.

This creates an immense frustration for the farmers in Sweden who already today live in a very difficult and pressured economic situation. There is a risk of being outcompeted by those who have followed a lower standard regarding animal welfare, environment, and climate. This frustration must we politicians take into account and respond to. To avoid Swedish farmers being outcompeted by products that do not meet the requirements for animal welfare that we set in Sweden, the government must push for stronger legislation for livestock throughout Europe. We believe from the Miljöpartiet's side that the requirements for animal husbandry should be tightened within the entire EU and that it is rather that path we should take. We shall raise the bar for animal welfare and animal protection in the EU rather than lowering it in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I also intended to dwell a little on the chicken industry. Chicken farming is an area that truly needs legislation for high standards. There are breeds that are bred to grow quickly, which leads to an enormous amount of suffering. I am talking about the so-called broiler chickens. Because they grow so fast, their entire lives mean one single great suffering. One can imagine that it is an extreme growth pain.

There are chicken farmers who practice organic farming and who use more slow-growing breeds, but they are very few. Here we mean that all chicken producers could comply with the European Chicken Commitments, ECC's, criteria, which would raise the living standards for the chickens.

Mr. Speaker! What is heartening is that there are alternatives. There are other breeds that one can switch to.

I would also like to dwell a little bit on broiler chickens. 5 million broiler chickens are culled in Sweden every year because there is no economic profitability in raising them.

After they have hatched, they are rolled directly onto a conveyor belt and ground down. It is an extremely unnecessary suffering considering that there are alternatives again. There are methods that allow one to sex the chicks even before they hatch. In that way, their lives do not need to end by being rolled on a belt down to death.

Here we mean that Sweden must do more. We need to follow suit and simply ban the slaughter of broiler chickens through the methods that are used today.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the cage-keeping of laying hens, positive changes are occurring. But there are still far too many hens being kept in cages in Sweden.

Again: We are very proud of the animal welfare law that exists in Sweden where we establish that animals shall have the right to their natural behavior. But to sit confined in a cage for an entire life does not provide those opportunities.

This is something that more than a million people in Europe have signed so that legislators can address it. Several countries have already taken initiatives at the national level.

Mr. Speaker! Much more can be done. There are alternatives.

Finally, I would like to address some things that have been raised in the debate. We must be able to see the entire spectrum of what animal welfare and animal legislation actually entails in Sweden.

It is a piece of animal legislation that I understand we are all proud of. But it is not implemented in all parts and is not always a reality.

We may have every right to be proud of what we have managed to achieve and agree upon. At the same time, the cases mentioned by previous speakers are real.

It is the problems that exist when animal cruelty occurs that we must focus on. We must dare to see that there are deficiencies when the legislation is not implemented.

It does not mean that we distrust people. The legislation exists in the whole of society in all different parts.

One can, for example, think of people who own a car. It is not that one distrusts people who are car owners. But there must still be rules and laws to follow.

There are requirements for inspections. There are speed limits. It is not a way to discredit or create any kind of mistrust towards everyone who owns cars.

Better conditions within animal health and veterinary care as well as animal welfare

Ownership entails a great responsibility. If one has responsibility for animals and that is what one builds their business on, there must be clear legislation and it must be implemented.

One way that would make me feel more secure that we have legislation that is actually implemented is if one were to increase transparency in slaughterhouses so that we as consumers can feel secure that abuses do not occur.

Animal cruelty must never be a background to the goods that one hopefully chooses based on values that say it is important to protect our Swedish farmers and stand up for at least somewhat higher animal welfare legislation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 2 April.)

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