Animal welfare

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report on animal welfare. It is an issue that affects many and which is very important.

Madam Speaker! We in Sweden have high requirements for our livestock keepers, and the animals are generally doing well. We have good animal welfare in Sweden that we can be proud of.

Swedish farmers use the least antibiotics of all farmers in the entire EU, unlike other countries where antibiotics are used conveniently and routinely. Because of this, we are also one of the countries in the world with the lowest use of antibiotics in animal production, and that is of course something we should be proud of.

Just because of the way things look here in Sweden, we need to teach and show the way for others and hope that they adopt our way of working. Here, Madam Speaker, we must push on and show the way, because the extensive use of antibiotics has led to a situation where antibiotics are losing their effectiveness as bacteria become more resistant. It is about the fact that it can actually be shown that we can continue with agriculture and animal husbandry in a sustainable and responsible way towards the animals and the people. We must show that our farm animals not only contribute to this but are also an important part of our nature conservation and food supply.

An important question to ask is: What do we do when the animals get sick and antibiotics no longer work?

Sweden is now working on these issues, both nationally and internationally, to counter the development of antibiotic resistance. It feels reassuring and incredibly important that we are at the forefront of this.

Madam Speaker! We know that most farmers in Sweden prioritize good animal welfare. But we cannot therefore lean back and feel satisfied. For we also, of course, know that there are deficiencies. And here, Madam Speaker, it is important that we ensure there is a good control function and that deficiencies are detected.

Madam Speaker! We in the Riksdag enact laws and ensure that there is an animal welfare act that ensures animals are spared unnecessary suffering and that people take their responsibility and protect the animals from risks of harm.

These words lead me further to the important functions in society that contribute to exactly this. I am speaking about the people who actually are a control function, who ensure that the law we enact is followed, who are actually out in reality and meet animals and people, and who actually pull the emergency brake when they see that things are not right. I am speaking, Madam Speaker, about our important veterinarians, animal keepers, and animal healthcare workers. But I would also like to pause at customs officers.

Madam Speaker! All animals kept by humans are covered by animal welfare legislation. For the animals to be well-off, it requires clear and responsible legislation and regulatory frameworks where protection and preventive measures are regulated. That Sweden suffers from a shortage of veterinarians has been known for a long time. And our government sees that, and our previous government saw it too.

The difference is that the previous government had eight years to meet this need. I could argue that one looked a bit between the fingers with this.

Just as the cow at Sörgården out in Kristinehamn shall receive rapid help if it becomes ill, the pregnant dog Lakkry in Haparanda shall receive the right care in time. Lakkry's owner shall not have to stand with their dog in their arms and ring the door of the animal hospital in the middle of the night - and not receive any answer because there is no staff. Lakkry's owner shall not have to see their dog and its puppies in the womb euthanized because the way to a veterinarian became too long. The government sees this problem and is actively working on that front. We must remedy the veterinary shortage that exists here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I have in previous speeches spoken about dog smuggling, and it is a subject I choose to raise here and now as well. It is still a problem in Sweden. We still receive reports that dog smugglers are caught at the Swedish border, and one can ask why. How can this continue despite that we know how poorly these puppies have it in the countries where the puppy mills are located? Well, I can tell you: It can continue because there is still a market in Sweden.

Time and again we have received reports about this, not least during the pandemic when everyone wanted to get a dog. When the breeders could not keep up, this market emerged. This has meant that organized crime surrounding dog breeding has grown in Sweden and around Europe. Puppies are raised in factories where the bitches are forced to mate for constant litter production. The puppies are taken from the bitch so that they lose the bond, and there is no oversight that the puppies are doing well. Diseases and parasites occur. Rabies, which we have been spared from in Sweden, occurs. The puppies are then sold significantly cheaper, with false papers and false identities.

This legal and care insecurity is extremely serious. It is obvious that we must handle this now. The police are doing their job, and customs officers are doing their job. But I want to appeal to the Swedish people: Be attentive to the puppies you buy! As long as there is a market in Sweden for these puppies, the puppy mills will exist abroad. One must be attentive to whether there is a lower price on the dog. Is it an established kennel? Can the sellers show authentic papers on vaccination? Have the persons who sell the dog been registered for a long time at the address where one picks up the dog? All these things can be warning bells that should make one prick up their ears when buying a dog.

Madam Speaker! It is important that Sweden strengthens the laws that are intended to protect animals and that we value animals highly. Animals cannot express themselves any more than by, for example, whining, or possibly screaming, when someone is mean to them. Puppies that are in poor condition cannot even do that.

Finally: We need to ensure that our laws protect the animals that exist in Sweden. We also need to have laws that protect animals outside of Sweden. We need, in different ways, to ensure that the laws are complied with by ensuring there is good access to, for example, veterinarians, animal caretakers and animal healthcare workers, as well as customs officers. We additionally need to ensure that there are resources that can apprehend criminals who do not behave and do not follow the law.

We are doing very well in Sweden, and we should feel proud of the animal welfare we have. It actually stands out. But as always, there are shortcomings and holes in the safety net. It is precisely those holes that we shall work together to close, and I believe that all parties here in the chamber agree on that. I know that our government prioritizes and is actively working with this.

Sweden is doing very well in that most take care of their animals in a good way, whether it concerns small animals or livestock. We have highly skilled veterinarians and other animal healthcare that work around the clock to meet the animals' needs. To them I want to say: A praise to you all! The work you do is appreciated. We also see that more is needed, and we do everything to meet that challenge.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Marléne Lund Kopparklint for an interesting speech.

Yesterday we heard on the news that nearly 22,000 animals are to be culled after an avian influenza outbreak in Kävlinge. The outbreak was discovered after sampling at a breeding facility with parent animals for broilers. The virus in the case in question is a variant that has circulated in Europe and Sweden since 2020, and the infection is suspected to have entered the facility via spread from wild animals. Wild and domestic animals are exposed to the same virus as humans.

This virus has also begun to spread to mammals - not least to mink. In October 2020, a mink farm in Spain was affected by a large virus outbreak. Researchers initially thought it was covid-19, but it turned out to be avian influenza that had mutated so that it can spread faster between mammals.

That the virus infected specifically mink is what worries the researchers most. It is no coincidence that Denmark culled all mink in a panic during the corona pandemic; mink farms where mink are bred and slaughtered to then become fur, which is largely sold to China, have long been described as potential virus factories. My question to Marléne Lund Kopparklint is therefore: When do you in the government intend to phase out the fur animal farms in Sweden?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! There was a bit of confusion in Member Kajsa Fredholm's contribution. I believe and interpret it as that the member wanted to ask a question about avian influenza. It is a widespread problem and has been at times, and it is an issue that the authorities are aware of. They are doing solid work there through research and preventive measures.

When it comes to avian influenza, we see how it spreads. We are well aware of how it happens. Targeted efforts are also made to prevent it by providing information to animal owners on how this should be handled. At regular intervals, when this occurs, warnings are issued. I think that good work is being done with preventive measures regarding this. It is also ensured that people receive the information they need. I know that the government takes this most seriously and is looking at how the work should be developed further.

I feel secure in how it works today, and I also know that it is being looked into further. I hope that it is a sufficiently good answer for the member.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Marléne Lund Kopparklint for the answer, but I am not quite satisfied with it.

Mink farms are a breeding ground for the next pandemic. As I said before, wild and domestic animals are exposed to the same viruses as humans. This question has been discussed before, and we have seen it in the media. Mink farms should be closed down as much for public health reasons as for animal rights reasons. We in Vänsterpartiet want Sweden to introduce a ban on fur animal farming by 2025 at the latest, and we want the government to present a plan for the implementation of the phase-out.

A full eight out of ten Swedes believe that it should not be permitted to breed animals in cages for the sake of fur, but now we also have a burning public health issue. It is not the case that the covid pandemic is the only pandemic we will happen to experience, but we know that we will be hit by more pandemics. In that regard, avian influenza is a serious virus. It feels a bit passive that one cannot act proactively in the matter.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, we enact laws in the Riksdag, and we shall ensure that there is an animal welfare law that ensures animals are spared unnecessary suffering. We also have control functions that follow up on how livestock are handled and various places where these animals are kept.

I feel confident in the work that the government is doing regarding avian influenza, as the member pointed out. I also feel confident in the control functions that the authorities have when it comes to ensuring that animal welfare legislation is followed.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marléne, for your presentation here! It was pleasing to hear that dog smuggling is a priority issue for the government, for it is also for us Social Democrats. I myself submitted a written question on that theme a couple of weeks ago. Very pleased to hear that is the case!

Now that I have a government representative on site, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a few questions about the recently appointed investigation into strengthening the competitiveness of Swedish farmers and specifically the issue concerning the preliminary review of livestock housing. That issue was raised here in the Riksdag a number of years ago and was then subject to a vote regarding its abolition.

Madam Speaker! I do not believe this is the right way to go because the preliminary review is a guarantee that the animal stables being built meet the requirements that are set, even regarding renovations. It secures animal welfare while at the same time the animal keeper can feel secure having been approved by the control authority, in this case the county administrative board.

Without this preliminary review, we believe there is a great risk that the animal owners will be negatively affected. It will contribute to increased costs if incorrect stables are built that must be modified afterwards. It can also mean a risk of a deteriorated working environment due to lack of ventilation and other factors. The fire protection aspect is also important in that regard.

Therefore, I would like to hear in what way the member considers that a removal of the preliminary review would help farmers strengthen competitiveness. I saw in the investigation directive that the consequences of a repeal should be analyzed, so it would be very good if I could get an answer to that question.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Sofia Skönnbrink! It feels reassuring that the Member shares the view that dog smuggling is a priority issue.

Regarding what the member is talking about, the government decided on 9 February to appoint an inquiry with the aim of strengthening the competitiveness for food producers and maintaining a strong animal welfare.

We have a high standard in Sweden that makes it necessary for us to look at this issue. We can see that there is a win-win situation in strengthening competitiveness while simultaneously being able to maintain the good animal welfare that we have.

As I said in previous posts, I feel confident that the government prioritizes animal welfare in Sweden and wants to maintain it. We also have a strong control function, where we will ensure that samples are taken and look at how it works moving forward. Regardless of what it lands on, these control functions are here, and we will maintain animal welfare and the very high standard that we have today.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marléne Lund Kopparklint, for the answer! However, I do not think the member really answers my question regarding specifically the preliminary review.

In the investigation directive, there is a section on investigating the consequences of a potential repeal of the preliminary review. The reason I choose to bring up just this question is that animal welfare in Sweden relies heavily on preventive work. That is what makes us have such great animal welfare in Sweden.

It is rarely that these preliminary assessments are approved without conditions or supplements regarding, for example, building dimensions, ventilation or fire protection, as I said earlier. As the member says, we have a high standard in Sweden, and we will of course do everything we can to maintain it.

It is not that we believe that farmers intentionally make mistakes in a construction process when it comes to producing livestock housing. On the other hand, it is quite tough to demand that our farmers should have expert competence in all areas, and this matter of interpretation and application of laws is very complex.

Instead of discussing or investigating a removal of the preliminary review, we think it would be more appropriate to examine in what way it can be developed and streamlined so that more preliminary reviews can be pushed through. Then the waiting time will not be so long, which has been put forward as a problem today.

My question to Member Marléne Lund Kopparklint is whether she also considers it more appropriate to allocate more funds to the county administrative boards so that preliminary reviews can be made more efficient and simplified.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! The member is right on that. This is an investigation that we will look into, and we will examine possible measures including regulatory simplifications to maintain high animal welfare requirements and strengthen the competitiveness for, for example, Swedish food production.

We will analyze how the Swedish animal welfare regulations affect the competitiveness of Swedish food producers in relation to food producers in other member states within the EU.

We will investigate possible measures to strengthen animal welfare, not only here in Sweden, but also to maintain what we have today. In that case, we will look at all the areas that the members are involved in, so I must ask that one waits until that result is out.

We feel secure that we are already working with these issues today. We are looking, as said, at animal welfare and how one works with competitiveness and the supervision that I spoke about to ensure that the Animal Welfare Act is followed.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to Member Marléne Lund Kopparklint for the speech! It highlights several important issues.

Also in the last debate on animal welfare issues in the previous parliamentary term, the dog issue was raised. The Riksdag addressed this with a clear announcement to the government as a result, and we were several parties who really worked to ensure that this is raised in different ways.

We are both dog owners and are deeply affected by the issues of ensuring animal welfare in all respects. I think it is positive that Marléne Lund Kopparklint highlights both the importance of the police and the Swedish Customs, but also emphasizes that the Swedish people have an important responsibility not to buy smuggled dogs.

I have taken note of the Swedish Kennel Club's article that was recently published, which concerns the expectations from Swedish dog owners that this government also takes great responsibility for following up on the announcement.

My question to Marléne Lund Kopparklint, given that the member represents the largest government party in the three-party constellation and that it has almost been half a year, is what measures the government plans to take to address and deliver on the announcement that the Riksdag and the parties that now represent the government were involved in pushing through.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a priority issue, and we are looking into it. As mentioned, there is a motion, which the member touched upon. What needs to be looked at, and what we will also look at, is to strengthen the justice system regarding these issues.

As I pointed out in my post, it is also about the fact that there is a good supply of veterinarians. When customs officers apprehend dog smugglers, veterinarians must be called to the scene to assess the condition of the puppies. If no veterinarian arrives, the customs officers must, in the worst-case scenario, release the dog smugglers, who then take another route into Sweden.

That is why it is a long chain of measures that the government will review. A parliamentary term is four years, but this is a prioritized issue given that the animals that end up in this situation suffer. I will personally monitor the issue; I can promise the member that.

In response to the question, it concerns the parts that the member himself is involved in: police and customs officers but also the justice system. When questions end up in court and are to be judged, it is important that there is a whole chain of justice that holds and that, above all, there are resources.

These people are entering Sweden, which we see from the number of dogs that customs has seized. It has neither decreased nor increased significantly, but it remains at the level it has been at. It shows that we really must work against this.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! In this situation, the question is extremely urgent. It is a very serious situation. I can understand that it is partly about access to veterinarians, but in this case, there is a clear announcement where it concerns the fact that the powers of the veterinarians need to be changed so that they can more easily report precisely the occurrence of suspected smuggling.

In that perspective, the answer is not whether one more mandate period is sufficient, but it is here and now that the government needs to provide an answer on how the announcement will have a practical effect. How is the government going to stop this gigantic criminal activity that puts very many dogs in difficult situations?

The question goes around once more. What are the government's not only priorities but actual action plans to address this this year? It is here and now that the problem exists in the Swedish context.

When will we be able to see results? And what concrete objectives are there from the government's side to really tackle the problem?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! If I could just snap my fingers and get rid of this, I would do it. But the members also know that during a parliamentary term, several measures can be taken. And it is not possible to change the situation overnight, even if one wished it.

I feel reassured that the government is prioritizing the issue of dog smuggling. Several measures are needed to strengthen protection and to prevent this from becoming a continued market in Sweden. There must be customs officers, police, and prosecutors who drive the issue forward. As the member said, there must also be veterinarians on site who have the authority.

But above all, we must be careful to urge the Swedish people not to buy these puppies. We must work proactively to ensure that we inform about what warning signs exist. The member is absolutely right that measures and actions must be taken. I have listed several measures for the member regarding how we should handle and will handle the issue. This will certainly be an issue that follows us during the mandate period because it has become an organized crime surrounding the smuggling of dogs.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 7.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that Sweden continues to be a pioneer when it comes to strong animal protection and good animal welfare. Animals are sentient and living beings, and that our animals are treated well is an ethical responsibility that we all carry.

In a previous government position, the Social Democrats worked actively with animal welfare policy in Sweden, among other things by introducing a new, modern animal welfare law which establishes that animals should be able to behave naturally. We continued the work of reducing the use of antibiotics. We commissioned an inquiry regarding camera surveillance at slaughterhouses. We also investigated how we could achieve a sustainable and long-term well-functioning healthcare for animals, and we pushed through a mandatory marking and registration of cats to raise their status and to reduce the risk of abandoned individuals.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's strongest animal welfare laws, which has given us healthy, well-cared-for animals, low antibiotic use, and animal welfare that can be relied upon. That animal welfare rules are complied with is primarily important for animal welfare but also for maintaining the public's trust in Swedish animal husbandry, especially regarding food-producing animals.

We know that most farmers across Sweden follow the animal welfare legislation and do their utmost to produce milk and meat that meets the Swedish people's expectations. At the same time, it is extremely important to ensure that those who do not behave properly are detected in time so that their animals do not have to endure neglect and, in the worst case, direct suffering.

This is not only important for the welfare of the animals but also for the best interests of serious farmers. If this is not managed, there is a risk that trust in Swedish food production will be eroded, which in the long run can also reduce the added value that we are so proud of here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important tools for detecting and addressing deficient animal husbandry is the county administrative board's animal welfare inspection. Without a functioning inspection activity, we cannot guarantee that the Swedish Animal Welfare Act is followed.

The control shall be regular, effective, fair, and legally secure, and resources shall be directed where they do the most good. The goal is therefore that at least 10 percent of our food-producing animals shall be controlled every year. It is a goal that unfortunately has not been reached for a very long time.

Madam Speaker! In recent years, the number of animal welfare inspections has steadily decreased. This applies primarily to the preventive, planned inspections, as more and more time needs to be spent on urgent complaint cases. This is a development that needs to be reversed, not least to improve the relationship between farmers and inspectors.

At the same time as we set high demands on our Swedish farmers, we also need to set high demands on the food we serve, among others, to our children in school and our elderly in elderly care. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to make it mandatory that in all procurements of animal-based food, requirements are set that the production has taken place with high standards for animal welfare and a low degree of use of antibiotics - just as here in Sweden. The public sector shall here be best in class, and Swedish farmers shall, of course, be prioritized.

Madam Speaker! Another important part of ensuring good animal welfare is to ensure that there is access to a well-functioning veterinary care in all of Sweden. Today, there are major staffing difficulties within animal health and veterinary care, especially when it comes to the operations of district veterinarians.

The government appointed the Socialdemokraterna to conduct an investigation to examine in what way we can achieve a sustainable and long-term well-functioning health and medical care for Swedish animals. The results of the investigation were presented in the autumn.

Madam Speaker! When I was on an internship with the district veterinarians in Arvika in January, we discussed the results of the investigation. The staff who worked in Arvika were not convinced that it is precisely more training places that should be prioritized in the first instance, but rather they argued that the working conditions need to be improved.

Some of the things they highlighted as problematic were the inconvenient working hours, the on-call duties, and the heavy work with the farm animals, which causes many veterinarians to choose to seek employment at small animal clinics instead.

Madam Speaker! It is not reasonable that the district veterinarians alone should bear the responsibility for the on-call service. In the investigation, it is proposed that the night shift should be abolished in order to improve the veterinarians' working environment.

I believe rather that the government needs to set requirements that private actors must also take their responsibility so that it is not solely the district veterinarians' task to ensure that there are veterinarians available at night.

Madam Speaker! I am a dog owner myself. My father has trotters, and my best friend's family runs a farm with dairy cows. In order for we and other animal owners in the countryside to feel secure that our animals receive help in time during acute situations, the district veterinarians are needed. Their work can in many cases be the difference between life and death.

When mares begin to foal and the foals get stuck on the way out, or when the family's pony eats too much grass and gets colic, experienced and competent district veterinarians are needed who can go out and remedy the situation. Farmers should also never have to slaughter animals in an emergency because a veterinarian is not available for assessment and emergency care.

Madam Speaker! A review of the EU-wide animal welfare legislation is currently underway. This gives Sweden a golden opportunity to participate and influence when it comes to strengthening animal protection and animal welfare throughout the union, in accordance with the reservation from the Social Democrats that I have chosen to highlight today.

We Social Democrats believe that a holistic approach is needed where animal welfare and preventive measures that strengthen animal protection are in focus.

To improve the competitiveness of Swedish food producers, it is of the utmost importance that the EU common legislation catches up with our Swedish animal welfare legislation. We are, as said, a pioneer country in many respects, and we shall continue to be so.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Malin Larsson and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Skönnbrink, for the speech! It is noticeable that the Member is concerned regarding animal healthcare in Sweden and that she is engaged in the issue. This is an important issue that we have brought forward during the entire previous mandate period. It is also an issue that we have posed to the previous government: How is one to remedy the shortage of veterinarians that has actually existed in Sweden for several years? I also know that several interest organizations have brought this forward.

Given the speech the member held regarding the shortage of veterinarians, I would like to ask: What measures do the Social Democrats intend to introduce regarding this shortage? And what measures were taken during the previous parliamentary term to ensure that more veterinarians and animal nurses were obtained? It is very interesting to hear what the opposition has planned to remedy this issue and what was done during the previous parliamentary term to remedy it. This is still a major problem, and we have taken over this problem from the previous government.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lund Kopparklint, for the question! I sincerely wish that it were we who could now remedy the shortage of veterinarians that we have in Sweden, but unfortunately, we are no longer in government. It is the Member's own party that has the leadership role in this important work. But I wish, as I said, that it had been us, because then we would have absolutely taken the issue seriously.

When we were in government - if we are to go into that and engage in a bit of humble bragging - we did very much to specifically secure the long-term and well-functioning health and medical care for Swedish animals. Among other things, we expanded the number of training places for both veterinary nurses and veterinarians. It is a very important step. We also invested money so that those animal owners who lived far out in the countryside could receive a grant, i.e., a compensation for the expensive fee it entailed when they received veterinary care from the district veterinarians specifically. We see that you now, in government, are scaling back that investment.

I think it is up to the member themselves to tell us how you intend to remedy the shortage of veterinarians, since it is you who are now in a government position. Then we will see if we can be helpful in any way. If you put forward good proposals, it is clear that we will not vote against them. But it would be interesting to hear what you, who actually have the power right now, intend to do, because I in opposition and my party cannot really influence things when the situation looks as it does right now.

(Applause)

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Madam Speaker! Now the member actually dodged the question I asked. We have taken over after the previous government. I absolutely do not share the desire that the member Skönnbrink put forward. You would still want to have the power, so that you could remedy the deficiency.

We have observed and seen how the previous government has pursued policies that have not remedied the shortage of veterinarians that we see today. On the contrary, I think that people looked the other way when it came to that issue, and not enough was done. Despite the fact that interest organizations brought this forward and veterinarians went out into the media and spoke about how large the shortage was, the government did not do enough. Today, we have had to take over the package regarding the shortage of veterinarians. We have measures for this that we prioritize. We must address this so that animal healthcare can be ensured and so that our animals will be well enough - both small animals and livestock.

I am very surprised that the member can stand here in the speaker's chair and actually feel proud of the work the government did during the last parliamentary term and during the term before that when we see the result, which is catastrophic, in the area today.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not really know where to begin. But the member stated that we did nothing. I addressed that early in my response to the member's question. I said that we increased the number of educational places, which is a good first step.

As I mentioned in my speech, we talk a lot with the veterinarians about what the working environment looks like. It is primarily the inconvenient working hours and the on-call duties that make many choose to leave district veterinary activities. It is clear that this is a good point for the member and the M, who are in a government position. It may be worth investigating, as I also mentioned in my speech, how one can ensure that the private actors, who most often own our small animal clinics, take greater responsibility for night shifts and the like. Then perhaps we can more easily ensure that we can staff the district veterinary activities.

I do not think I received an answer from the member regarding the compensation for field work. It concerns precisely the activity that district veterinarians perform for farmers and other animal owners who live far out in the countryside. There, a reduction has been made. If the member can elaborate on that a bit, I would be very satisfied.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Since this was the closing remark, there are no conditions for providing an answer to that question. That question must remain hanging in the air or be resolved in some other way.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! In recent years, we have all heard about unfortunate incidents in Swedish zoos. We have heard that even the Social Democrats have reacted strongly to the incidents that have occurred. The Social Democrats have shown great concern regarding the issue and shown great commitment when it comes to the shortcomings in the Swedish zoos. But unfortunately, I do not see many concrete proposals from the Social Democrats. My questions are: What measures do you want to take? And is this a prioritized issue for the Social Democrats?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by apologizing for the confusion in my last contribution. As a new member, I lost track of the fact that it was I who had given the speech that was to have the final reply.

That is enough on that, and thank you to Beatrice Timgren for the question! As the member says, it has been a very high-profile issue, especially after what happened in Furuviksparken in Gävle. We also had a special hearing in the committee, where we invited stakeholders and actors involved in the issue, on how we should improve for the animals in the zoos and also so that this type of incident does not happen again.

I mentioned in my speech that the animal welfare inspection is an important part of detecting and addressing deficiencies before they become too serious and before it affects animal welfare or those who work with the animals, for that matter. I want to stand by that. When we had the hearing, the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland mentioned that they were estimated to be out on these zoo inspections every five to ten years. That is far too infrequent for one to be able to maintain preventive work so that the animals are well and the staff have a good working environment.

As I pointed out, we see the importance of a well-functioning animal welfare inspection and want the level of ambition to be raised so that at least the regular planned inspections are carried out.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Animal welfare controls are good, and we also want more controls. But now we have also submitted a proposal to the Riksdag regarding a review of Swedish zoos, and I wonder why the Social Democrats choose not to support it. What is the reason?

I appreciate that the Social Democrats say they prioritize the issue, but I can note that the Social Democrats, during eight years in government, have not done enough to tackle these deficiencies.

These are some of the most serious incidents in recent years: In 2017, an 18-year-old died after being attacked by a bear, in 2019 a person had their arm amputated after a crocodile attack, in 2021 a wolverine escaped from its enclosure and in 2022 a wild boar escaped together with all its cubs. In 2022, a zookeeper was gored to death by an antelope, and in the same year the venomous snake Sir Väs, whom we have all heard about, escaped. That year, lynxes also escaped from Skansen, and we also had the much-publicized incident in Furuviksparken.

I think these are far too many incidents. More measures therefore need to be prioritized, and my question is therefore: What is the reason that the Social Democrats do not want to support our reservation regarding a review of the Swedish zoos?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The incidents that the member describes are very serious, and it is terribly awful for everyone involved, whether it is the one who has been attacked, a close colleague, or animals that one has been forced to euthanize. These are catastrophes that have happened, and it is very serious. We Social Democrats also think so.

However, I believe that the member and I have different views on how to govern. If we are talking about animal welfare inspection in Sweden, it is not the intention that one should micro-manage how the County Administrative Board allocates its resources. As I said, a prioritized area is our livestock because that is where the food-producing animals are, and that is what should be the main focus for the planned risk-based inspection.

What we have discussed within the Social Democrats and which I have also expressed in various forums, including where the member has been present, is that we rather need to investigate how the risk classification model is structured and how the resources should be distributed to achieve the greatest efficiency and reduce the greatest risks.

That shall be my answer to the question: Instead of focusing on a specific instance, we need to take a holistic approach to see how we can increase the number of risk-based planned routine inspections, which is incredibly important for working preventatively for animal welfare, whether it concerns horses, zoo animals or livestock.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Tonight we are debating the report on animal welfare here in the chamber. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

Sweden has a very strong and solid animal welfare system that must be protected. But unfortunately, the criminal dog smugglers do not care about this at all. We see how dog smuggling is increasing in our country. In conversations I have had with customs officers, they point out that the dog smugglers they catch are only the tip of the iceberg. We have read about and seen the horrific images of dogs that have been brought into the country illegally. It is a terrible animal cruelty. We also know that trade increased greatly during the corona pandemic. I am pleased that we in this committee agree that more must be done to put an end to this scourge.

It is positive that during 2022 we received several announcements in the Riksdag regarding measures against dog smuggling. The new government is actively working on the issue and is expected to return to the Riksdag with proposals for measures.

Madam Speaker! We can be proud of our Swedish farmers, who for decades have worked actively to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture. Through sound animal husbandry, preventive animal healthcare, and active disease control, we in Sweden have a good situation with healthy animals.

Ever since the European Medicines Agency EMA began producing statistics on the consumption of antibiotics, Sweden has been the country in the EU whose livestock production uses the least antibiotics. Per kilogram of assessed weight, Sweden uses 10.9 milligrams, Denmark 33.4 milligrams, Italy 173.5 milligrams, and Cyprus 296.5 milligrams. The range between different countries in the EU is therefore very large.

Unfortunately, the overuse of antibiotics both in livestock farming and in healthcare has led to, or will lead to, appalling consequences. Antibiotic resistance is one of the absolute greatest threats we have globally. Antibiotics that can usually be used to cure diseases and injuries no longer work. Around 700,000 people every year die worldwide because of resistant bacteria.

To counter the development of antibiotic resistance and the spread of resistant bacteria, committed and coordinated work is required at several levels, locally and nationally, but above all, it must lead to a powerful tightening within the EU and globally.

I am grateful that we have a government that takes this issue very seriously. The government recently decided on changes to several laws to improve the monitoring of antibiotic use for the treatment of animals.

Madam Speaker! A question that has been topical tonight and which is very significant in our country is the great shortage of veterinarians, something that many livestock owners are concerned about. That farmers and sick animals need to wait unreasonably long is not acceptable in any way. It causes unnecessary suffering both for the animals and for the farmer. For the farmer, it is about both the anxiety over sick animals and the large cost that often becomes the consequence of animals not receiving help in time.

It feels hopeful that the government is preparing measures to address this large and important issue.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The Government has recently appointed the inquiry with the aim of strengthening the competitiveness of Swedish farmers against other EU farmers. We Social Democrats naturally think it is very important that the competitive conditions for Swedish farmers are strengthened. The question is what the Government means by that regulatory simplifications should be investigated. We Social Democrats are afraid that it will mean that Sweden will rather back down than that we will further develop our animal welfare.

Madam Speaker! The member himself has previously pointed out that breeding requirements for dairy cows should be abolished. In a debate article in Aftonbladet a few weeks ago, we could read that Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren and the Sweden Democrat Martin Kinnunen identified growth promoters for pigs as one of the measures for which requirements are set in Sweden but not in other EU countries.

Based on this, I would therefore like to ask the member if the purpose of the investigation is to lower animal welfare requirements in Sweden in order to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish farmers.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Sofia Skönnbrink for a very important question. The short answer is that we do not want to lower, dampen, or in any way make our animal welfare worse. We want, on the contrary, to ensure that this can be countered, partly by having a food production worthy of the name, increasing production, and partly by reviewing in what way we, compared to the EU, can compete on equal terms.

This is interesting, and the member is raising an important issue. Those of us who have been involved for a while also know that it was a fundamental point in the food strategy adopted in the chamber in 2017. We also know that the then Minister for Rural Affairs, Sven-Erik Bucht, pushed very hard on this, that is, that we must achieve a competitive agriculture. The former investigator has shown that this must be reviewed.

This was a key point when we adopted the food strategy, and for us, this is part of the strategy. One could, in fact, ask the former Minister for Rural Affairs, but I believe that even the Social Democrats have reflected on how more can be done with the strategy. Many farmers consider today that there was a lot of talk and little workshop. That is why it is important to move forward to produce a food strategy 2.0.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear what the member says. But because there have been many such statements over many years, one becomes concerned about what the development will be. We are afraid that the animals will pay the price for the competitiveness that is repeatedly mentioned in the commission's mandate regarding strengthened competitiveness for Swedish farmers.

The Chairman mentions that the purpose is for us to look at other EU countries and ensure that there is equivalent legislation. But there, we Social Democrats believe that we should rather ensure that there are stricter rules in the EU that improve animal welfare and that they follow our lead in Sweden. We know that Swedish animal welfare and the low use of antibiotics are things that consumers value highly and place a high price on. Therefore, it is of great importance that we protect this, that we develop rather than dismantle.

Madam Speaker! Measures that are currently still being raised as costly are, for example, straw for pigs, which is an absolute necessity if we are to be able to work preventatively to strengthen animal health. The straw supply was introduced so that the pigs could exhibit their natural behavior, root around, and so that they would not bite each other's tails. Therefore, we do not need to use tail docking in Sweden either.

The grazing requirement is also very important, not only so that the cows can exhibit their natural behavior but also to be able to maintain good hoof health in the herd.

I am somewhat concerned that we Social Democrats and the member's own party, the Christian Democrats, have different views on what strong animal welfare is. The member mentions that there should be high animal welfare requirements in Sweden. For that very reason, I would like the member to elaborate on what strong animal welfare means to him.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Sofia Skönnbrink once again for her very important questions. I will try to answer them as much as time allows.

We can start with the grazing requirement, which is still an important issue. We know that it was a gift to Astrid Lindgren - at the end of the 90s, I believe. We who have followed it a bit also know that at that time it looked completely different in our animal stables. Back then, the animals were inside the barns very much. It was cramped and dark, and it was not as it is today. Today, there is a completely different standard in our stables. The farmers, especially the dairy farmers, can tell that they open the doors to the stables on a warm summer day but that the animals hardly go out. They would rather be inside.

It is important to review how it works. I do not think it is strange to review these issues. LRF says the same thing, namely that one must be able to review how the rules look today. Has it been good? Has it been bad? It is very important that we dare to say so.

Just because a law was enacted so long ago, with the levels of that time, it is still strange that we cannot review whether something is good or bad and how we should look forward.

When the farmers describe how the situation is, it is important to bring forward facts.

(Applause)

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Animal welfare is an important issue that engages many, and there is great consensus among all parties in the Riksdag that Sweden shall have good animal welfare in the future as well. I am proud that Sweden is known for having one of the world's best animal welfare standards, and we have many capable and committed animal owners. I am also proud to belong to a party that prioritizes the issue of animal welfare. This is noticeable, not least, in all the individual motions submitted on the subject every year.

But it is important that we do not settle there. Good can always be better. And it is above all important that the law is followed. It is not permitted to let animals suffer physically or mentally. Animals are sentient beings, and it is important that crimes against the Animal Welfare Act are punished. Recurring reports of animals suffering badly show that this issue is important to continue working on. Animals are often injured during transport to the slaughterhouse; it can, for example, involve birds that have their wings broken. It can also be a matter of insufficient hoof care in cows, and this leads to overgrown hooves which result in movement impairments and swollen joints. Unfortunately, tail biting still occurs in Sweden, which gives rise to wounded and infected tails.

This is not acceptable and must not occur, and therefore we, Sverigedemokraterna, propose an animal welfare code that clearly illustrates what is permitted and what is not. We also want to ensure that the issue of animal welfare becomes a natural part within the framework of regular police training to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised for economic reasons or due to negligence.

To improve animal welfare, better training of staff working with environmental and animal supervision is also required. This could prevent violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Furthermore, the supervisory authorities should conduct more visits to farms to ensure that the animals are kept under good conditions.

The slaughter must take place with the least possible suffering. Already in the 1930s, it was forbidden in Sweden to slaughter animals without stunning. It is important to continue finding and developing effective stunning methods. Today, it occurs that birds are hung by their legs while fully conscious before their heads are lowered into electrified water to be stunned. It is a method that creates strong stress, and the risk of failure is great.

Several methods are used for stunning pigs before slaughter. The most common method is stunning with carbon dioxide. This is a painful stunning method that creates strong stress, which affects the animals' welfare. Therefore, it is important that more research is conducted on alternative stunning methods for animals.

Madam Speaker! Many Swedes today, unconsciously, consume meat that comes from, for example, animals that have been halal-slaughtered, which means that the animal has been bled before stunning. This causes unnecessary suffering and pain, which contradicts Swedish animal welfare legislation, as I previously mentioned.

A significant portion of cattle within the EU are slaughtered without stunning, which is alarming. Sweden should therefore be granted an exemption to stop the import of these animals. The government should also work towards a general ban within the EU against this slaughter method.

We are aware that this may take time. Until then, we in Sverigedemokraterna want to strengthen consumer power by ensuring that meat from animals that have been bled without anesthesia is clearly marked. We also want to work towards ensuring that all animals covered by public procurement are slaughtered in accordance with Swedish legislation. This will set a standard for the rest of the food industry and promote better treatment of animals. That animals are anesthetized in an effective way and quickly lose consciousness without having time to feel anxiety and pain is an important animal welfare issue.

Mr. Speaker! I want to remain on the issue of meat imports and speak a little about goose and foie gras. Although goose liver production and the force-feeding of geese and ducks is prohibited in Sweden, it is still possible to import these animal products from animals that have been treated in a very undignified manner. This brutal treatment with force-feeding results in serious health problems for the animals. Sweden should take the lead in banning the import of animal products produced through overfeeding or force-feeding and work towards a more ethical and sustainable animal product production.

Choosing Swedish and locally produced food has many advantages for animal welfare, the climate, and human health. The fact that Sweden has relatively strict animal welfare means that Swedish-produced meat often comes from animals that have been treated better than animals in many other countries. Shorter transport distances also mean less stress for the animals and reduce the risk of diseases and injuries.

Swedish animals are often healthier, which means less antibiotic use. This is due to strict rules and legislation that minimize the use of antibiotics in Swedish animal husbandry, which in turn reduces the risk of antibiotic resistance and other health problems in humans.

It is important that we as consumers have the opportunity to take these aspects into account when we choose which food products we buy and consume.

Animal welfare is a broad area, and I do not have time to cover all of our proposals in my speech. However, I would like to take the opportunity at the conclusion to mention the unacceptable occurrences regarding the various incidents and escapes in several animal parks. One example of this is the king cobra Sir Väs who escaped from Skansen in Stockholm. Another notable incident occurred in Furuviksparken in Gävle, where several chimpanzees were shot dead after the security routines proved to be deficient.

Zoos have long had an important role in society, not only by providing maintenance but also by educating and actively working for species conservation. Unfortunately, in recent years, serious deficiencies have been uncovered in several Swedish zoos. These include everything from poor staff care to substandard animal housing and poorly planned animal enclosures.

The Sweden Democrats have taken a leading role in pushing demands regarding this and have submitted motions to carry out a review of Swedish zoos. The government should take the animal welfare issue seriously and ensure that there are sufficient resources and regulations in place to ensure the animals' safety and well-being. Legislative changes may need to be considered to ensure that animals are not given the opportunity to harm themselves and that people are not exposed to danger. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 33.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that animal welfare is an issue that concerns us all. We must continue to work for improved animal welfare and ensure that animals are treated in an ethical manner. It is our responsibility to ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary suffering and that we take their well-being into account in all stages of the production of animals. By working together, we can make a difference and create a better future both for the animals and for ourselves.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf and Leonid Yurkovskiy (both SD) concurred.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have on several occasions during the evening raised the appointed investigation regarding how we shall ensure that the competitiveness of Swedish food producers is strengthened. I will do so also in this case because it is such an incredibly important issue that we need to discuss more closely.

One of the member's colleagues in the Sverigedemokraterna stood in this chamber about a week ago and spoke about precisely the harmonization of legislation towards the EU. At that time, it was quite clear that it was about Sweden having rules that are equivalent to the EU's rules. In practice, this means that we must lower our animal welfare requirements.

Mr. Speaker! I have previously mentioned Kullgren's and Kinnunen's article in Aftonbladet where they jointly pointed out that the measures regarding straw availability for slaughter pigs are something that distinguishes Sweden from other EU countries. There are also several other examples where we differ from other EU countries. In some other EU countries, sows are fixed during the entire farrowing period. In Sweden, this is permitted only in special cases. In other EU countries, pigs are kept on slat floors without access to bedding. They are castrated without anesthesia, and their tails are docked for preventive purposes because they, due to understimulation - since they do not have straw - bite off each other's tails.

In other words, there are very large differences between Sweden and other EU countries, which is why we Social Democrats take seriously the type of statements we have received in recent times. Therefore, I would like to ask the member if she, like her colleague, considers that a harmonization of legislation towards the EU means that Sweden should lower its requirements.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. It is a very important and interesting question. Of course, it is incredibly important that we do not lower our standards.

When it comes to the issue of tails, it is very positive that this does not occur to the same extent in Sweden as in the rest of the EU, even though it also occurs here. Therefore, it is important to work towards ensuring that the Swedish Animal Welfare Act serves as a guide for the development of the entire EU's animal welfare requirements. It is important that Swedish consumers are not disadvantaged. We do not want to lower the requirements. It is important that Sweden's standard becomes guiding in the EU.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! From the member, it sounds as if she has a different opinion than her colleague and that it is rather the EU that should tighten its legislation and raise its requirements than that Sweden should back down. If that is the case, it is very positive.

We must, however, not forget that this was not done overnight. This morning I was at an exciting seminar on antibiotic use. There we were told that it will take approximately 15 years before the conventional farms in Europe manage to transition to the system we have in Sweden, and this applies to both cattle and pigs.

Mr. Speaker! Since I know that strengthened competitiveness for Swedish farmers is a priority issue for the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs, I find it difficult to see that they will be content to wait for restructuring in Europe that takes up to 15 years. Therefore, it is important that we have this discussion today.

Let me conclude with two questions to the member. For the first: In what way does the member mean that we should be able to strengthen the competitiveness for Swedish farmers in a more short-term perspective without compromising our Swedish animal welfare requirements?

Secondly: The member, in their speech, took up again the review that the Sweden Democrats want to conduct regarding the Swedish zoos. What do the Sweden Democrats want with this review? Can the member elaborate on what the purpose of the review is?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We want the animal welfare law to be harmonized within the EU by tightening the EU law. Therefore, the government should work to ensure that Swedish animal welfare serves as a guide for the development of the entire EU's animal welfare requirements.

We agree that it is a priority to tighten the legislation in the EU so that our farmers are not disadvantaged.

When it comes to our Swedish zoos, it is important that supervision is tightened and that it is investigated how the legislation that already exists can be followed better.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! One of the Sweden Democrats' election promises was that they want to replace Swedish livestock keepers who maintain a higher standard for animal husbandry than what applies in the EU generally. The Sweden Democrats thus want to replace the livestock keepers for the additional cost.

The basis for the current government's existence is the Sweden Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats can therefore prioritize issue after issue for the government.

My concrete and simple questions are therefore: How do the Sweden Democrats intend to deliver on their clear election promise to replace Swedish livestock farmers who maintain a higher standard for animal husbandry than what applies in the EU in general? When will we see concrete evidence that money is being paid out to these livestock farmers?

The Sweden Democrats bear a very great responsibility for the work that you, together with the government, are currently undertaking, and this issue is very interesting to follow up.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

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

As I said earlier, the issue of animal welfare is an incredibly important issue for us in the Sweden Democrats, and it is important to strengthen animal welfare at the EU level. Among other things, we want to eliminate slaughter methods where the animal is not stunned before bleeding. It is also about improving Swedish farmers' competitiveness without compromising Swedish animal welfare.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Does an election promise mean nothing for the Sweden Democrats? One can clearly read what you promised before this mandate period: to replace animal keepers who maintain a higher standard for animal husbandry than what applies in the EU generally.

We deserve to receive an answer on this given your key position in both the autumn and the upcoming budget negotiations. There are surely a number of negotiations ongoing right now linked to the year-end budget.

When will we see that the Sweden Democrats deliver on this clear promise linked to animal welfare and Swedish conditions?

Furthermore, and not least: Can we count on a campaign promise from the Sweden Democrats to be something to rely on?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish animal welfare shall be characterized by high ambitions, and that is something we have always stood for.

It is also important to further investigate how ambitions in the area of animal welfare can be raised in the most effective way without hindering Swedish competitiveness. Therefore, we want a cost analysis of how different proposals for increased ambition within animal welfare can affect Swedish competitiveness.

At the same time as we maintain good animal welfare here in Sweden, we shall influence Europe for higher ambitions at the EU level to also strengthen competitiveness against other EU countries.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There is a long tradition of commitment to animal welfare in Sweden. During the 20th century, Sweden actually became a sort of pioneer in this area, and animal protection has been progressively strengthened over the last century. Protecting animals is now a matter of course for the vast majority. We should be proud of that.

Sweden is an example in many respects in this area. The vast majority of those who have animals, both private individuals and farmers, take exceptionally good care of them. Evidence of this is that animals in Swedish agriculture are so healthy.

Sweden has an exemplary low antibiotic use, largely thanks to preventive animal health work, hygiene measures, and sound breeding. Healthy animal environments with good animal welfare contribute to healthier animals and to the fact that the need to use antibiotics is small. This can be seen as proof that many are doing a lot of good.

Mr. Speaker! This is important, not only for animal welfare but for all of humanity. Antibiotic resistance, meaning that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, is a serious and growing public health problem in Sweden and the EU but perhaps primarily outside the EU. Without effective antibiotics, our world would look very different. Diseases that we today can treat with a course of penicillin would potentially become life-threatening. Using antibiotics unnecessarily or in the wrong way means that more bacteria risk becoming resistant.

It is important that Sweden continues to be a leading country. Thanks to targeted work with preventive measures for good animal health and good animal welfare, the situation in Sweden, as I have already touched upon, is much better than in many other countries. We have a low consumption of antibiotics for animals and a relatively low prevalence of resistant bacteria. But the problems are increasing here as well.

In this area, just as in so many other areas, we need to cooperate across borders to be successful. Already today, many countries within the EU are working to reduce the use of antibiotics for animals. This actually results in a decrease in exactly the use of antibiotics within the EU. Unfortunately, however, an increase can be seen generally in the world, and this is quite a lot linked to the fact that the demand for animal proteins is increasing. Here, Sweden has an important role to play, among other things in the EU, and the EU has an important role to play in the world.

Mr. Speaker! As in so many other issues, the EU is part of the solution to the problems we face.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Elin Nilsson, for the speech! I am pleased to hear that you highlight the importance of reducing the use of antibiotics. We were at the same seminar this morning, as I mentioned earlier.

Sweden is truly a pioneer country. Unlike other EU countries, we do not treat entire groups, but we have an individual treatment that is given with injections rather than giving antibiotics via feed or water. We can hope that this will be a driving force now when the EU-wide animal welfare legislation is to be reviewed and animal welfare improved in order to be able to reduce the use of antibiotics.

But I also intend to ask a few questions to the member. You are surely tired of me now, the hour is getting late and we have an additional two debates to address, but I intended to return to this investigation which I have previously mentioned and which I will not repeat once more. The investigation points to certain measures that should be taken - I have already spoken several times about straw and harmonization of legislation and other things.

I know that the Liberals have previously had a very ambitious animal welfare policy. On your website, it can be read, among other things, that animals should have the opportunity to exhibit natural behaviors through access to outdoor housing, water to swim in, and soil to root in, which pleases me very much. I and the Social Democrats place great hope in that the Liberals, in this government base, can advance the best interests of the animals. Therefore, I would like to know how the Liberals, in their current government position, intend to work to ensure that Swedish animal welfare remains and is not dismantled.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! This is an area where we share the commitment and stand quite close to each other, I believe, in the will to strengthen animal welfare.

The Liberals have in no way changed their opinion on the issue that animal welfare should continue to be strong. It should be at the level it is or be strengthened. Now an investigation has been commissioned, and we will have to see what it results in, but my and the Liberals' starting point in this is that if there is anything to be changed in order to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish food production, it is not a lowering of the animal welfare requirements that exist. It is rather that what is produced in other EU countries should meet the requirements that exist in Sweden and not the other way around.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Elin Nilsson, for the answer! It is reassuring to hear. We shall, of course, await this investigation and see what the result will be and what proposals for measures will be presented. I can be the first to say that I look forward to it, and I am convinced that we will have further debates here in the chamber on that very subject.

As said, I hope that the Liberals stand up for the strong animal welfare policy that you have previously championed, and we are not late in supporting it from the Social Democrats' side. We look forward to the investigation's proposals, and from there we can take it from there. We are ready for upcoming debates on that subject.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I also look forward to the result of the investigation and just want to mention in this context that we as Liberals have a large and important legacy to manage in the work that Marit Paulsen and others have done in the European Parliament. It is something that we truly safeguard and that we will continue to work for.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say about animal protection and animal welfare, but I will focus mostly on two parts here today. One concerns setting a deadline for the phasing out of fur farming, and the other is to phase out cages within the Swedish egg industry.

I will begin with fur farming. Let us state that breeding animals for their fur belongs to the past. The mink industry has always been the dominant part of Swedish fur farming. The will of the people regarding fur farming has long been unambiguous: the Swedish people want the fur industry to be phased out. A full eight out of ten Swedes believe that it should not be permitted to breed animals in cages for the sake of fur. There is, therefore, a clear majority who would appreciate the government showing decisiveness in this matter. Within the EU, almost half of the member states have made decisions to ban fur farming.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, mink live in cages without the possibility to swim, play, run, or live under natural conditions. In 2019, the Swedish Board of Agriculture presented a report in which they demonstrate major deficiencies in the knowledge of what the animal welfare looks like within the Swedish fur animal industry. Fur animal breeding is associated with major animal welfare deficiencies that in many respects can be considered to go against the Animal Welfare Act. No one would accept that, for example, cats, a predator similar to the mink, were kept in cage cages day and night, but that is how reality looks on the Swedish mink farms. This in turn results in behavioral disorders in the animals, such as self-harming behaviors. In eleven of twelve inspections of fur animal farms conducted during 2019 in Sweden, deficiencies in the animal housing could be observed.

Mr. Speaker! This is not the only problem. Mink farms are also a breeding ground for the next pandemic. Wild and domestic animals are exposed to the same viruses as humans. Mink farms should be shut down also for public health reasons. The Covid-19 pandemic is almost over, but it will not be the last pandemic we experience.

In an article in Göteborgsposten some time ago, we could read alarming news about avian influenza. Avian influenza spreads between wild birds, and the risk of a human being infected by a bird is small. But the virus has begun to spread to mammals, not least to mink. Göteborgsposten reported that a mink farm in Spain in October 2022 was affected by a large virus outbreak. Researchers first thought it was covid19, but it turned out to be avian influenza that mutated so that it can spread faster between mammals.

That the virus infected just mink is what worries the researchers most. It is no coincidence that Denmark culled all mink in a panic during the corona pandemic. The reasons were several. Hundreds of animals are kept closely in cages, which increases the risk of infection spreading like wildfire. Because they are outdoors, they can easily come into contact with virus-carrying wild animals. The mink is also like humans in a troublesome aspect: Our larynxes are relatively similar and thus susceptible to similar types of viruses. It is simply time to stop with mink farms.

Mr. Speaker! The second issue I want to raise in today's debate is the need for Sweden to take the lead and lead the way in the issue of phasing out cages within the Swedish egg industry. Vänsterpartiet wants cage housing of chickens within the egg industry to be phased out by 2024 at the latest.

Not so long ago, I asked a question to the Minister for Rural Affairs, whether there is an intention to take initiative to introduce a ban on cages within the egg industry in Sweden. I received an answer that the government sees no need to ban enriched cages for laying hens nationally and that they do not want to anticipate the ongoing review of the legislation at the EU level.

The question of cages in the egg industry has been discussed in politics for over 30 years. Today, cage-free systems are the most common among Swedish egg producers, which is good. This is largely due to consumers' active demand for eggs from cage-free hens and companies' active work in offering alternatives, but still, 230,000 hens sit in cages where they never get the opportunity to spread their wings.

Eggs from hens kept in cages can be found primarily in mixed products and in ready-to-eat meals sold in the large grocery stores. Consumers have no way of knowing if the eggs in these products come from free-range hens, even when the product comes from Sweden. Therefore, a political decision is needed that ensures that all hens within the Swedish egg industry have the rights that the Animal Welfare Act stipulates.

A legislative proposal in line with the European Citizens' Initiative End the Cage Age is expected to be presented in the autumn as part of the review of animal welfare legislation at the EU level. This is good, but as always, processes at the EU level take time. It will take a number of years before the legislation is in place.

Just sitting and awaiting EU legislation is not enough. It is better to seize the opportunity and become a pioneer by showing that we can make our food systems burfria and in that way facilitate for the rest of the EU to follow our example.

Abuses within the egg industry can be prohibited by making a clarification in the Animal Welfare Ordinance that hens need freedom to move unhindered, or by sending a mandate to the Swedish Board of Agriculture to update the species-specific legislation regarding poultry.

Mr. Speaker! I conclude by moving for approval of the Left Party's reservation 16 that Sweden should introduce a deadline for fur farming by 2025 at the latest and that the government should present a plan for the implementation of the phase-out, as well as that the government should return with proposals for a regulatory framework that prohibits the sale of newly produced fur from animals in cages.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of our reservation number 8 in the report. It concerns animal welfare and competitiveness.

Swedish food producers are, as we have heard in many contributions in tonight's debate, world leaders in animal health. We have a restrictive use of antibiotics in Swedish animal husbandry.

We need to continue to be proactive in these issues and work for strong animal welfare at both national and international levels. It contributes to keeping the animals healthy and to ensuring they have it well and can behave as naturally as possible.

We can observe that Swedish farmers cannot always be paid for the added value that, for example, grazing animals create in the form of open landscapes and enhanced biodiversity.

Centerpartiet believes that the regulatory burden within the area of animal welfare needs to be reduced, without compromising the care of our animals. There are several aspects regarding the Animal Welfare Act that need to be reviewed and improved. It is not acceptable that animal owners experience being treated incorrectly during inspections at times. It is also not acceptable that animal welfare inspectors are subjected to threats and violence during visits.

Centerpartiet wants the application of the Animal Welfare Act to be reviewed - that is good - while at the same time ensuring legal certainty during animal welfare inspections. It should feel secure for animal producers in contact with state representatives when these perform inspections. In addition to individual officials being able to have a great impact on individual companies, there are also large variations between different county administrative boards during inspections.

We constantly need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of consolidating the animal welfare control into a separate organization to ensure legal certainty and equality in inspections across the entire country. In order for there to be an objective assessment of animal bans or business bans, it is best that the district court makes the decision on this.

Mr. Speaker! Many have paused at the situation when it comes to the smuggling of dogs to Sweden. It is a many times criminal and extensive activity that increased during the pandemic and which is still ongoing.

Last year's debate and clear decision here in the Riksdag, with an announcement to the government, was about giving veterinarians the opportunity to report illegal importation. It was a motion that the Centerpartiet signed during the parliamentary year. It was also about measures against organized smuggling of pets, also a motion from the Centerpartiet. In the same report, the Moderaterna had a motion regarding Tullverket's possibilities to stop vehicles to search for dogs.

Mr. Speaker! Given that this is an ongoing and serious situation that constantly affects individual dogs but also risks affecting people in the form of disease, it is important that the government quickly responds to the announcement. There is great pressure on the issue, and I expect the government to return shortly with concrete measures and also ensure that they are implemented.

It is important that veterinarians have the opportunity to report suspicion of illegal import. It is a matter of reviewing the General Data Protection Regulation and the issue of veterinarians' duty of confidentiality in relation to this matter.

Sweden has strict requirements and supervision when it comes to animal transport. We have seen and can take note of reporting from other EU countries, where unworthy transport of live animals occurs. Despite the fact that there are rules regarding this in the EU, they are not followed by all member states. The control of how member states comply with the EU regulatory framework for animal welfare should therefore be improved, because all tightenings of the regulatory framework become toothless if compliance is not ensured.

We must also continue to focus on the issue of insecure journeys to third countries. They should be completely prohibited if it is not possible to guarantee safe animal transports.

Mr. Speaker! We are always keen to strengthen our security of supply and Swedish competitiveness when it comes to production and operations within agriculture.

Even though Swedish animal welfare is significantly better than animal welfare in the rest of the EU, there are still more improvements to be made at home. We want to see more animal welfare programs where industry organizations, slaughterhouses, retail chains, and producers work together. This needs to be done while simultaneously working to strengthen competitiveness but also the conditions to be able to develop the operations in Sweden. These are major tasks that need to be addressed moving forward.

We also see that there is a need for the control systems for Swedish slaughterhouses to be modernized, among other things through new digital aids.

In our assignment, we meet representatives of, among others, small-scale slaughterhouses who experience that the bureaucracy and also the costs have increased. This is not positive from a sustainability perspective or an accessibility perspective to be able to deliver to slaughter in the local area.

Centerpartiet welcomes the work that is now being done within the EU with a general and new animal welfare legislation at the EU level that shall ensure that the EU-wide animal welfare is raised to at least the Swedish level. This also ensures that all consumers can trust the food they consume.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, animal welfare policy has been discussed. It is an issue that engages my own party in particular. The Green Party rests on three solidarities - solidarity with people, solidarity with nature, and solidarity with animals.

Animals have a right to their own lives, to a good life, regardless of the utility for humans. Animals should not exist for our sake. But our ideology is far from reflected in reality.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to it being morally reprehensible to lock up wild animals in small cages, the covid-19 pandemic has clarified the risks of mink farming. Zoonoses, that is, diseases or pathogens that can spread from animals to humans, constitute approximately 75 percent of all new respiratory infection diseases in humans.

On a mink farm in Spain, there was an outbreak of avian influenza in October, where the virus also spread between the animals for the first time. They had to cull 50,000 animals. And minks are genetically similar to us humans. Therefore, researchers now want the mink farms to be shut down, because there is a large risk that the virus will spread further from minks to humans. 16 EU countries have already introduced a ban on fur animal farming. And here, Sweden is going against the current by continuing to allow this risky industry.

Letting the mink stay in small cages for their entire lives is, as the researchers say, a ticking bomb for the next big pandemic. Mink farms are therefore not just a matter of animal welfare but also a matter of security. We believe that it is of the utmost importance to work preventatively and now take the chance to end a risky industry and in that way end the enormous suffering for the mink.

Mr. Speaker! We have much to do even when it comes to stopping the grossest oppression against animals. We have an industry that produces so-called broiler chickens, chickens that live their lives on a smaller area than an A4 throughout their entire lives. And it is not possible to claim that the Animal Welfare Act is implemented in a good way for the hens that cannot stretch out their wings or be hit by the rays of the spring sun since they are kept indoors.

Every year, almost 100 million chicks are born for slaughter in Sweden. The slaughter chickens - I believe they were called broilers when I was little - have a very rapid growth, from 40 grams to almost 2 kilos in a month. This means there is a large risk of bone defects and movement disorders. The breeding is strongly centralized. And for animal breeding, the rapid growth is a very large animal welfare problem.

We must set requirements for the poultry industry, so that they invest in more slow-growing breeds and that every chicken gets more space to move around and that the chickens are given the opportunity to spend time outdoors.

Mr. Speaker! We stand by all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of reservation 17 regarding the gradual phasing out of the mink farms.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén for his speech.

Despite the fact that we have one of the world's best animal welfare laws, unfortunately, threats, violence, and harassment occur against many farmers and agricultural producers. It is a widespread problem. A study from SLU shows that approximately every fourth farmer has been subjected to unauthorized entry.

I would like to ask Member Daniel Helldén what position Miljöpartiet takes on criminal animal rights activism and civil disobedience. It is known that leading representatives have participated in contexts with organizations that conduct violence-oriented animal rights activism. Many of these organizations subject entrepreneurs, shop owners, hunters, and farmers to threats, sabotage, and vandalism.

Miljöpartiet also mentions in its party program that civil disobedience can be a significant method. At the same time, it is written that civil disobedience refers to actions that are currently prohibited, which means actions that are illegal according to Swedish law.

I wonder how the member and Miljöpartiet view the importance of following laws that have been enacted democratically in this chamber, and which laws it is okay to break according to Miljöpartiet. Is it okay to break laws when it comes to animal welfare if one does not like the policy being pursued? So, what form of civil disobedience does Miljöpartiet stand behind? And is it okay in order to achieve the political goals that one wishes to achieve? Is it okay to, for example, destroy hunting towers, sabotage for hunters and release minks?

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

TALMANNEN

The debate concerns the report regarding animal welfare issues. This sounds more like a debate on criminal policy to me. Daniel Helldén must, of course, answer. But we shall then perhaps try to return to the animal welfare issues.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Beatrice Timgren wants to talk about this. Civil disobedience by definition means that one breaks laws. That is the point. Then is the question of how one does it. If someone, for example, who protects animals engages in civil disobedience, they do not engage in, for example, sabotage. It is something else. It falls outside of this by definition.

Civil disobedience, therefore, is about expressing things and matters when one believes that, for example, legislation that has been enacted in this chamber is not being followed and one wants to show that to the public by committing civil disobedience and also taking one's punishment for it. And it usually involves disobedience towards the police.

As late as 2000, a parliamentary commission of inquiry, the Democracy Inquiry, submitted its final report. There, there are long passages stating that civil disobedience should be seen as something other than an ordinary crime, as it concerns raising public opinion.

I can imagine that within the Sweden Democrats, people are not so keen on discussing civil disobedience; it is a party that is more interested in repressive measures - perhaps even when it comes to the issue of animal welfare and that there are certain types of animals that are truly treated in an unhealthy way. This applies, for example, to the broiler chickens, which live in a way that one perhaps actually would not accept and which our Animal Welfare Act - I would say - has prohibited.

From that perspective, one could say that civil disobedience is a way to raise public opinion, but sabotage is not civil disobedience. We do not stand behind it.

(TALMANNEN: We have now received two contributions on that theme. We shall see if we can now return to the subject of the committee report.)

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that this is an animal welfare issue. When one, for example, stops cars that are on their way to slaughter, it means that the animals have to stand unnecessarily long in cramped slaughter trucks. When one releases mink, it often means that they cannot get food and starve to death, which is painful.

Animal Welfare

Everyone, of course, has the right to express their opinion and show what they believe in, but it must occur in a legal and democratic manner. Therefore, we must work to combat this type of activity and ensure that the penalties for this type of crime increase significantly – even for the sake of the animals. I wonder why it is so difficult for Miljöpartiet to distance themselves from such organizations.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what Beatrice Timgren is after. What we have worked on in this report - and what we have motioned for and demand - is that we shall phase out the mink farms. This is, in fact, a system that is not acceptable from an animal welfare perspective.

It is about wild animals that should not be locked in cages but be in nature, where they belong. Furthermore, minks are not commonly found in Swedish nature, and we shall therefore not release them into Swedish nature; then a lot of things happen. But we shall not have that type of animal confined so that people can wear a fur. It is not acceptable.

Great changes have been made regarding cage housing, but it is not enough. There is a large number of researchers pointing out that the mink are not allowed to live in a healthy way and in the way they are intended to live based on the type of animal they are. Therefore, we shall phase out the mink farms. When it comes to covid19, avian influenza and so on, we also have the problem that the mink have a genetic predisposition to contract certain diseases, which can then also be transmitted to us. This creates major problems, and therefore we shall phase out the mink farms.

There are, of course, things and matters we cannot accept when it comes to the relationship between certain types of activists and the farmers who remain, but that is a completely different matter. We are to phase out the mink farms – that is what we are motioning for, and that is what we will vote for in the chamber.

Animal Welfare

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 23 March.)

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