Animal welfare

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report on animal welfare.

Sweden has some of the world's highest standards for animal welfare, and we are proud of that. Good animal welfare means that our animals are healthier and receive significantly less antibiotics compared to animals in other countries.

High antibiotic use involves a risk that multi-resistant bacteria can form which can be transmitted to us humans. The EU's infectious disease agency ECDC estimates that approximately 35,000 people per year die from antimicrobial resistant infections in the EU, and it is a worrying increase.

Sweden is in a good position, and that is why it is important that we continue to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics, not least at the EU level. The level of animal welfare in the EU needs to be developed to Swedish standards, and the animal welfare directives must be complied with everywhere in all EU countries. Here, Sweden has an opportunity to assist with knowledge and guidance. The fact that our Swedish animals are better off means that less antibiotics are required in animal husbandry. It is a winning concept that farmers in more countries should follow, partly to strengthen the food supply and partly to counteract antibiotic resistance.

Madam Speaker! Reports of animal neglect evoke strong feelings, not least in myself. Animals are living, sentient beings that deserve respect and a good life under good conditions. What must be remembered is that it is only a very small proportion of Sweden's farmers who are responsible for animal neglect. Regardless of the small proportion that misbehaves, it casts a shadow over the entire industry. The vast majority of Swedish farmers prioritize good animal welfare and follow animal welfare legislation.

This does not, however, mean that we can lean back, because of course there are deficiencies to be addressed. Therefore, it is important to have a well-functioning control function that detects those who do not behave correctly in a timely manner. It is both about ensuring that animals never have to endure neglect or suffering and about the trust in Swedish food production. Swedish consumers place a great value on animal welfare, which is why we must be able to guarantee that the milk, meat, and eggs are produced in a decent way.

Madam Speaker! In the budget bill for 2024, the government proposed financial support for mink farmers who voluntarily wound down their operations. It gave the few mink farms that remain in Sweden the opportunity to wind down their operations in a planned and orderly manner. The decision is timely. Mink farming for fur production is associated with several challenges, not least from an infectious disease control perspective.

Madam Speaker! On June 30, the investigation on strengthened competitiveness for food producers and strong animal welfare was reported. Sweden's high animal welfare requirements, together with Sweden's good animal health situation and responsible antibiotic use, constitute valuable added values for Swedish food production. At the same time, the requirements can be burdensome for the individual producers.

That is why it is important that an investigation has been commissioned to review how we can strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish food producers. It shall also propose measures for how we can strengthen animal welfare both within the EU and globally.

Madam Speaker! Organized dog smuggling emerged during the pandemic, when more and more people wanted to get a dog. Swedish dog breeders could not keep up with the demand, and dog smuggling emerged in Sweden. The Swedish Customs Service has warned several times about smuggled puppies. The smuggling often results in the dogs being forced to endure long and tough transports. They are rarely vaccinated and dewormed, and they can therefore carry diseases. The spread of infectious diseases from smuggled animals thus risks increasing. These dogs are sold significantly cheaper with false papers and identities. Buying a smuggled dog is punishable today.

The police have been able to demonstrate that there are links to serious organized crime with further smuggling of narcotics. Customs Service is today forced to reject dogs when they arrive at the border. However, the Service is not allowed to decide on impoundment because only veterinarians have that decision-making authority. That is what we want to change.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's farmers are experiencing an ever-increasing fear that their livestock will be harmed by so-called animal rights activists. According to a survey from Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, farmers experience that attacks from animal rights activists directed at farmers have increased in recent years. According to the survey, the animal rights activists' attacks involve trespassing into homes, vandalism, telephone harassment, assault, and threats. Previously, it was primarily mink and fur animal breeders who were affected by the animal rights activists, but now dairy farmers, egg producers, horse owners, and fish farmers are also affected.

The risk of being subjected to crime naturally constitutes a great psychological burden for the farmers, but it can also be serious for the animals. It does not only cause stress for the animals, but the risk of transmission of viruses and bacteria also increases in connection with trespassing. Furthermore, it occurs that activists release animals, which is also not protecting the animals, as they have very great problems surviving in the wild.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has some of the world's highest standards for animal welfare. We shall continue to develop these and be proud of them.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

The member says that it is not time to lean back, and I truly agree with that. The member mentions smuggling dogs, but I am also thinking of another type of dog matters that need to be addressed today. There are probably few of us in here who have missed the recent reporting on aggressive dogs and dog attacks, which in some cases have led to a fatal outcome – which is, of course, completely unacceptable.

That a dog bites a human can be due to many things. The dog may feel a need to defend itself, feel cornered and need to create distance, or have a great desire to fight. The latter has led to a discussion about a possible breed ban. But actually, it should not be necessary because it is already illegal today to own or breed dogs that carry a great desire to fight, or extreme desire to fight as it is called in Sweden.

Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what the government intends to do to ensure that the legislation already in place is followed and how the Member intends that the monitoring of regulatory compliance can be improved.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree with Sofia Skönnbrink that this already exists in the legislation and that we must ensure that it is followed in a better way. This can be done in several different ways.

I would, however, like to go back to something that I believe we in this chamber often overlook: personal responsibility. There are many responsible dog owners who have dogs that in many cases are called fighting dogs but which are raised in the right way and come from a responsible dog breeder.

Much of this is precisely about how one trains their dog and takes responsibility for the animal that one has committed to taking responsibility for. We see many examples of dogs that are not normally counted as fighting dogs, for example Labradors, that bite adults and children.

I believe that this is an issue that is much larger than what we can change through legislation. I want us to return to personal responsibility and what the individual dog owner can do to take responsibility for their dog.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

We agree that a great responsibility falls on the dog owner specifically, whereby this issue of breed bans is worth discussing. There are, in fact, breeds with hunting characteristics that do not have the type of aggressive behavior that is directly dangerous to other animals and to humans. An important part in avoiding dog attacks is, among other things, as the member says, that there is a responsible owner who trains their dog in the right way.

But it is also important that aggressive dogs are taken into custody in a timely manner. In the Swedish Government Offices' report *Hund under kontroll*, which was released quite recently, one can read that the county administrative board's and the police's work with the supervision law is not functioning as intended and that the taking into custody of animals is not sufficiently effective.

A recurring theme in the report is that shared responsibility is no one's responsibility and that cooperation between authorities must be significantly improved. It is also pointed out that the authorities need increased powers to be able to handle this type of case in a good way.

Finally, I would like to ask the member which of the proposals presented in the Government Offices' report the government intends to proceed with. When can we expect new legislation to strengthen the County Administrative Board's and the police's role regarding the taking into custody of animals to be presented?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Skönnbrink mentioned that the care is not sufficiently effective and that the system currently in place does not function as it should. I will read the report and take in what is written in it. I look forward to reading it.

The committee members highlighted several interesting points. It is obvious that something new needs to be done here, that one needs to rethink. It is required that a holistic approach is taken regarding the entire system to ensure that it becomes a better, more efficient and functioning system so that both dogs and humans can be safe.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is a debate on animal policy. In such debates, the different parties often sound misleadingly similar to one another. The unity in Swedish politics has largely concerned painful animal testing. On that issue, we have been in agreement between the different blocs, and parties have time and again submitted motions in the Riksdag that more resources must be allocated to phasing out the painful animal testing.

Many do not know that we in Sweden have so many animal experiments that are so severe that they are classified as painful. It is a rather strict definition of suffering. In 2021, there were therefore 243,009 animal experiments. It is almost difficult to grasp the enormous suffering behind this large figure.

I believe there has been such a great consensus on the issue, at least until recently, because it is expensive, outdated and risky to use animals as models for humans. We actually differ extremely much. It has been shown that nine out of ten of the products and medicines that have been given the green light when tested on animals have since not worked for humans.

My question to the member is quite simply: Why does the government choose to abolish and more or less shut down the work of 3R-centers in order to phase out the painful animal experiments?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a sensitive issue. But we also know that much is being done to reduce animal testing overall and especially the distressing animal tests. It is important that that work is allowed to continue and that we continue to reduce the animal tests.

A great deal of work has already been done. New technologies also allow for better and more efficient methods to test, for example, new medicines or whatever it may be. New technology allows for many more possibilities.

I believe, therefore, that the work could continue in a more efficient way and without the agonizing animal testing, but then we must dare to look a bit outside the box and see what new technology exists and that we can use.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am a bit confounded. This is an area where we politicians perhaps should not decide how researchers should actually proceed in carrying out their research and developing medicines; that is up to the researchers.

The 3R-center has existed to gather information, produce best practice, and help all researchers who are quite dependent on a history and who, out of habit, are involved in research with the help of animals. It has been a very important hub. I believe that is what the member refers to when she says that much is being done. It has been done thanks to those people, who have helped researchers across the country to find better, more accurate, cheaper, and more efficient methods that do not take the outdated detour via an animal, a detour that in no way helps us to develop effective medicines and products.

3R-center is the hub. It is they who can [do] the research and the consulting better than we politicians can. It is they who can point in the right direction.

This is not just a question of efficiency and being at the forefront of research. We also have an EU requirement on us, and Sweden is falling behind. The basis for that is that the government – I do not know if it was out of ill will or if it was a mistake, that one simply did not see that the money needed to be injected – has not ensured that the money is there.

So, those are fine words. But the money to help all these researchers overcome the hurdles and start more efficient research is being withheld. That responsibility lies with the government.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course, politicians should not decide which methods are to be used; it is the researchers who are to research new techniques. I look forward to seeing which of these techniques can be applied in different ways. It was, therefore, rather a curious point of view.

The researchers continue with this work. Much has been done over a long period, just as Member Le Moine mentions. It is important that it continues, and the researchers will continue to do a lot. There are incredibly many who are engaged in this area. The work will therefore not stop.

I look forward to seeing what other opportunities we have to find new ways forward specifically to reduce the painful animal testing.

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 6.

There are many things that I love about Sweden and that make me proud to be Swedish: our beautiful nature, the association life, the welfare, and, not least, the school meals, which give our children a unique opportunity to succeed in their education. As a true animal lover, it is also always just as fun for me to be able to talk about our strong animal welfare and our low antibiotic use in animal husbandry.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is important that Sweden continues to be a pioneer when it comes to animal welfare issues. We are proud of the new, modern animal welfare law that we introduced earlier in government, where it is established that animals should be able to behave naturally. Now it is of the utmost importance that the rest of Europe follows suit, not only for the animals' but also for our Swedish farmers' best interests.

That is why it was so pleasing when the EU Commission, as part of the farm to fork strategy, was tasked with investigating and presenting proposals for new rules for, among other things, animal keeping, transport and slaughter, as well as the labeling of food. But unfortunately, this joy was short-lived, for it is now clear that the planned review of the EU-wide animal welfare legislation will not be carried out in its entirety, at least not in the near future. The extensive legislative package that was supposed to be presented last year was never completed. Instead, we had to settle for proposals that only concerned the transport of animals and enhanced welfare for dogs and cats, as well as traceability on the internal market.

Madam Speaker! This is not sufficient. This protracted process must be accelerated so that the vision of an improved and modernized animal welfare legislation in the EU can become a reality. In that case, the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs need to do more than just send a letter to the European Commission. Now is the time for us to stand up for the animals, our Swedish farmers, and all those EU citizens who have been involved in pushing for a change.

Madam Speaker! Recently, we Social Democrats have also been monitoring another issue, namely dog ownership in Sweden and particularly the occurrence of wolf hybrids. Crossing of dog and wolf involves a mixture of tame and wild genes, which risks resulting in behavioral patterns that are difficult to predict. This can lead to dangerous situations, which makes the wolf hybrid, in our view, directly unsuitable as a companion animal.

Despite it being illegal to possess, sell, or breed individuals that are less than five generations from wild wolf, there is a growing trend of owning a dog with as much wolf DNA as possible in it. In the review that Sveriges Radio conducted in the autumn, it emerged that individuals with as much as 95 percent wolf DNA had been found in Sweden. This can be compared to legal hybrids, which may only have 3 percent wolf DNA. Even though hybrids of this type are illegal today, there are loopholes in the current regulatory framework that make it difficult for the control authority to determine whether a suspected wolf hybrid has too high a proportion of wolf DNA or not. Even more problematic is that wolf hybrids are allowed to be imported to Sweden, which gives us even less control over the breeding and which individuals are crossed.

Madam Speaker! Because of this, we Social Democrats submitted a committee initiative in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, where we, among other things, proposed that the import and breeding of wolf hybrids should be classified as a species protection offense and that all breeding and import of wolf hybrids should be prohibited. We believe that there is a risk with having wolf hybrids as pets, for humans and other animals but also for the Swedish wolf population. Unfortunately, there was no majority for our initiative in the committee, which caused it to fall, but we continue to push in this direction.

Madam Speaker! Another issue that we Social Democrats have chosen to focus on is to stimulate local and small-scale agriculture. We mean that this can entail great advantages when it comes to animal welfare while simultaneously reducing the vulnerability in the food system.

Among other things, we want to see more small-scale farm slaughter so that more animals can avoid the stress that transport, housing, and slaughter risk causing. To reduce costs for the livestock keepers, we also want to introduce digital veterinary inspections as a complement to physical visits. In this way, we can reduce the time spent while maintaining a high quality of slaughter. In times of veterinary shortage, we believe this is a welcome proposal because it will lead to a reduced number of trips.

Madam Speaker! Let us remain a little longer on the issue regarding the shortage of veterinarians. Just like last year, there are great challenges when it comes to animal healthcare in Sweden. The staffing difficulties have been known for a long time, and as you all know, the district veterinarians have problems finding competent staff. The inconvenient working hours, the on-call duties, and the work with farm animals mean that many veterinarians today choose to seek employment at the country's small animal clinics instead. Not least from a rural perspective, this is problematic because the district veterinarians fill a very important role when it comes to taking care of sick farm animals and horses. Their work often means the difference between life and death.

Madam Speaker! In order for all of Sweden to be able to live, it is therefore very important that we can create a sustainable and long-term well-functioning veterinary care for all animals regardless of where in the country they are located. The Government has announced that new legislative proposals in the area will be presented this month, and we Social Democrats are following the matter closely. For us, it is important that there is a veterinary readiness around the clock, all year round, so that all animal owners can feel secure that their animals can receive the care they need, when they need it.

Even from an infectious disease control perspective, our veterinarians have a very important role when it comes to monitoring and preventing serious, infectious animal diseases from gaining a foothold and spreading further. This became clear, not least in the autumn, when we had the first outbreak of African swine fever in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The interest in animal welfare issues is great, and Swedish citizens are eager that our animals are treated with dignity and respect. We Social Democrats want that our domestic animals, companion animals, and production animals shall be kept and cared for in a good environment and in a way that promotes their health and well-being. That animal welfare rules are complied with is important not only for the animals but also so that we can maintain the public's trust in Swedish animal husbandry, especially regarding food-producing animals.

One of the most important tools for detecting and addressing deficient animal husbandry is the county administrative board's animal welfare inspection. We Social Democrats believe that this inspection needs to be regular, effective, legally secure, and fair, and that resources should be directed where they do the most good.

The authorities also need to be given reasonable conditions to succeed in their mission so that we can avoid being part of further animal welfare scandals. This applies not only to food-producing animals but also when it concerns aggressive dogs and fatal dog attacks, something that has been highly topical recently.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that strong animal welfare and strengthened competitiveness can go hand in hand, if decisions are made with regard to both perspectives. More and more people are demanding ethically produced goods, which gives Swedish products a competitive advantage.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Malin Larsson (both S) concurred.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! That we should have a high level of animal welfare is something we in the chamber often very much agree on, and that is good. We also want a high level of animal welfare at the EU level - we also agree on this.

Slaughter without stunning is prohibited in Sweden, and all parties agree that it should be so. But it is permitted in other countries, including other EU countries. Sometimes the labeling is very unclear, which leads to many consuming meat from animals that have been slaughtered without stunning, sometimes ritually.

I wonder how the Social Democrats view this. Does one want a clearer labeling, or does one want to work at the EU level to ban slaughter without stunning? How does one view an import ban on meat from animals that have been slaughtered without stunning?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! Labelling of food was part of the package from the EU that was to be presented during 2023 but which was, therefore, stopped, which I mentioned in my speech.

Of course, clear labeling of food products is very important so that consumers can make an informed choice. At the same time, there must not be so much labeling that it instead becomes confusing and misleading. It is therefore a matter of finding a good balance between what makes it clearer for the consumer and what might instead cause confusion.

There is a great deal to say about unstunned slaughter. As the member mentions, it is already forbidden in Sweden to slaughter animals without them having received proper stunning. This is extremely important for animal welfare and is absolutely something that we in the Social Democrats also stand behind.

Of course, we will push for similar legislation to be introduced in other EU countries as well. In that regard, EU cooperation is very important. We believe that we need to push, and therefore we are keen that the review is now carried out in its entirety and that it does not present a watered-down proposal where important parts have been removed. We will absolutely continue to push for a change at the EU level.

At the same time, it is even more important that the government and the parties included in the government base - including the Sweden Democrats, who have a direct influence on the policy being pursued today - do what they can to influence both nationally and internationally regarding what type of animal welfare legislation and rules for animal welfare we want to see.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I had a bit of difficulty perceiving the answer in what was said. The Member means that too much labeling would become confusing. Does it mean that the Member means it would become confusing if one labels a product so that it appears that the slaughter took place without stunning?

We absolutely want to see more labeling at the EU level and also here in Sweden, including labeling indicating that it has been produced in Sweden. But how do the Social Democrats view import bans? Would the Social Democrats want to see an import ban when it concerns products where the slaughter has occurred without stunning? And how do the Social Democrats view the fact that such products are also purchased by the public sector?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for further questions! What I mean by that the labeling must not be confusing is that there must be a rigor and it must be clear for the consumer which labeling applies and which does not. Voluntary labeling can also be very misleading. One can, for example, enhance a product's utility by stating such as that it is extra nutritious or healthy. There, one must look at what is important labeling and what is not.

As mentioned, a proposal was to have been submitted, but it was stopped. We have to wait and see what is intended from the EU side when it comes to finding a uniformity that works even across national borders.

Then I believe that the most important thing one can do to put an end to this type of unanesthetized slaughter in other countries is to promote the animal husbandry we have in Sweden today, where it is not permitted to slaughter animals without anesthesia. By choosing Swedish products, one can know for certain that the animals on one's plate have not been subjected to this painful handling. The most important thing is therefore to stimulate Swedish agriculture by choosing Swedish products.

Regarding the member's question about the public sector, I would like to say that what I have understood is that public catering is best in class when it comes to purchasing Swedish-produced and locally-produced products. Then it may certainly occur that other types of products are purchased, but in that case, it is more of a municipal matter. Municipal representatives must keep themselves up to date with what their officials choose to purchase for food for the catering operations in the respective municipality.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I agree with much of what has been stated by the Social Democrats. My remarks may not be as predictable.

I think it is important to really prioritize these issues moving forward. Now we have a government where the commitment perhaps does not reach as far as it should.

We in Miljöpartiet are very proud of what we have achieved together regarding animal welfare issues, but there is more to be done. Therefore, I am curious, and it is out of curiosity that I now ask how the Socialdemokraterna stand on an antibiotic tax. It is a tax that could contribute to stimulating more plant-based [consumption] and to ensuring that the meat that is still consumed in Sweden shall be Swedish-produced. One could place a tax on meat that does not meet the requirements that the Swedish people expect of animal husbandry in Sweden. This is my question.

The Social Democrats have also been very involved in issues regarding fighting dogs and the like. A great deal was said in the statement about lack of controls. It is I and the Green Party who are the first to agree. It is a prevailing trend that the controls are lacking, and it affects the animals. Therefore, I am also curious to hear how the Social Democrats stand on an animal welfare authority, i.e., an authority that does not fall under the Swedish Board of Agriculture but gathers competence and can carry out controls in a more systematic and fair way.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the interesting questions! We do not have much time, and those were quite broad questions.

Regarding the first question, about the antibiotic tax, I would like to say that it is probably more my colleagues in the Committee on Taxation who have insight into how to handle different tax rates and such. It is therefore nothing that concerns my specific area of expertise in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

I would like to focus more on the issue of fighting dogs and this matter regarding an animal welfare authority.

I think that it is not necessary to have another new authority. In my opinion, we have a well-functioning system in Sweden for how to detect and address deficient animal husbandry, whether it concerns farm animals or private ownership of dogs or cats. We do, however, know that they have very much to do out at the county administrative boards' animal welfare units. They are overwhelmed with work and have a work situation where threats and hate have become increasingly common. It is difficult to find people who have the strength to continue in the profession, because it is extremely vulnerable. I believe there is much to be done to strengthen them in their role. It is also about providing sufficient resources, so that they have time for all types of inspections.

First and foremost, they shall prioritize the farm animals, i.e., the food-producing animals. That means that time does not really suffice for, for example, follow-up regarding aggressive dogs and the care of dogs.

There is also an increased number of reported cases, which are even higher priority in relation to food-producing animals. This means that they often have to go out on urgent cases, which takes time away from the planned inspection.

I therefore believe very much in securing more resources and creating a sustainable working environment for the inspectors who are in the industry today.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is time to continue the dialogue and determine what can be agreed upon. Fundamentally, what is being presented is very positive.

The previous exchange of remarks was actually about halal slaughter. From the Sweden Democrats' side, one is very committed to the animals, but it is precisely because this issue with halal slaughter is important. It was interesting to listen to.

But against the background of that debate, I am thinking about possibilities for origin labeling. It is a real problem. As consumers, we have the opportunity to choose organic eggs, organic meat and so on, but when it comes to ready-made food or food at a restaurant, we do not have the opportunity to make such conscious choices.

We in Miljöpartiet have advocated for having origin labeling all the way. I believe it could be a way that doesn't become too confusing to simply give consumers the opportunity and power to choose what they consider important even when they eat at a restaurant.

How do the Social Democrats view that proposal?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for that question! It is very fun to get to talk about the labeling of meat in restaurants. Those of you who were with me in the food debate know that it was almost the only thing I nagged about in that entire debate. It is a heart issue for us Social Democrats that it should be introduced in restaurants and cafes but also in large households. It is precisely for the reason the Member raises, namely that consumers should be able to make a conscious choice in a simple way.

We think it is very skewed. When you buy minced meat in a store, you know exactly where the minced meat comes from. When you roll meatballs at home, you know which country the animal that you have chosen to eat originates from. But if you eat at a restaurant, you have no idea if the hamburger comes from Sweden or where it is imported from.

There are today counterarguments that one can indicate on a voluntary basis that one serves Swedish meat. But we are very keen that there should be a uniformity, just as I mentioned in the exchange with the Sverigedemokraterna. It is about there being the same type of regulatory framework across the entire chain. It must be a legal requirement that one must indicate this.

This is something that we previously, when we were in government, submitted a notification to the EU Commission about. It is precisely about being able to introduce own national regulations. But this notification, rural affairs minister Peter Kullgren chose to withdraw. He wanted to wait for the EU-common legislative package, where among other things the labeling would be included. This was to be presented during the previous year.

Now this was not done. We are in a situation where we still do not know when this type of labeling will be introduced. But we Social Democrats hope that the process will be expedited so that by autumn at the latest, or at least by next Christmas, we can know whether it is Swedish or Danish Christmas ham that we are eating.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal, which includes a notification to the government to increase the availability of small-scale farm slaughterhouses and mobile slaughterhouses.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a strong and good animal welfare, an animal welfare that we can be proud of in terms of our animal husbandry. It is primarily our skilled farmers who have championed this, so that it has become the way it is. The result is that we use the least antibiotics in the entire EU.

We can be proud, but it is also important that farmers in the EU learn from our Swedish farmers. We know that unfortunately, in many EU countries, the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture continues. It is, Madam Speaker, extremely serious.

Today we know that at least 700,000 people die annually due to resistance to various medicines. This is an immensely important issue for humanity that we in Sweden can take the lead in.

We Christian Democrats think that the EU is too detailed in many issues, but in this issue, the EU should really do much more so that countries use less antibiotics. In that way, one counters the serious threat that exists. As said: Here, Sweden can be a leading light.

Madam Speaker! We now have a government that takes the food strategy very seriously. In the food strategy, it states that competitiveness shall be increased for Sweden's farmers. Therefore, the government decided in February last year to task a special investigator to, among other things, analyze how the Swedish animal welfare regulations affect the competitiveness of Swedish food producers and how competitiveness for Swedish food production can be strengthened while maintaining high animal welfare requirements.

It is an important signal that we are now moving from talking about competitiveness in the food strategy to producing proposals on how we can achieve this. I know that many within Lantbrukssverige are looking forward to the investigation, which will be released at the end of June this year.

Madam Speaker! The large wild boar population has for many years been a major concern for Swedish agriculture. Many of us have been worried about the consequences of this. This concerns, above all, the feared African swine fever. Unfortunately, that infection hit Sweden last year. We see how enormously serious consequences this has and how important it is that we take the infection with the utmost seriousness.

The number of wild boar must decrease - that is one thing for sure. Therefore, in February, the government tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency with developing an action plan for how the wild boar population can be reduced based on local and regional needs. This is very important, and it is good that this is now being done.

Madam Speaker! The organized smuggling of dogs is a major concern, and it is a very great suffering for the animals. I am, however, pleased that we in the Riksdag in April 2022 decided on three motions to the previous red-green government regarding proposals to prevent the smuggling of dogs.

The current government is acting on the issue and has, for example, allocated more funds to Tullverket in order to improve the agency's ability to maintain border protection and apprehend more smugglers.

The government is working together with the EU to tackle organized smuggling. On 7 December 2023, the EU Commission presented a proposal for a new EU regulation on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats bred for sale as pets for economic reasons. Negotiations in the Council of Ministers will begin during the spring of 2024. Many of us hope for a change and that we can, in this way, prevent the animal cruelty that is ongoing.

Madam Speaker! My colleague Helena Storckenfeldt raised in her speech a question about animal rights activists or, rather, animal rights vandals. It is a hostage and a great concern for our Swedish farmers that it is in this way. There must be a change so that there is stronger protection for farms and for farmers.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Member Oscarsson's speech on animal welfare. The Member is very proud of the Swedish legislation and sees it as a guiding light. I share the Member's view on this, also regarding the fact that our neighboring countries in Europe and the EU countries should approach the Swedish legislation regarding animal welfare.

My first question is: How are the government and the Christian Democrats working to ensure that the Swedish animal welfare legislation also exists within the EU?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for a very important question! As the member well knows, there are animal welfare laws in the EU - it is not that there are none. But there is much more to be done.

As I pointed out in my speech, Sweden is a good example. Our farmers really took a great responsibility. We have, for example, this with the knorr, where the EU has followed suit in some ways. But one is not there in all countries.

It is clear that we in Sweden, with the good experience that we have, can show that this makes a difference. It is about animal cruelty. Above all, it is also about this with antibiotics, as I spoke about. It is incredibly important that we reduce the use. I think it is a life-critical issue, and we in Sweden show good examples.

I know that the government is now talking about this in different ways. I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs talks a lot about this with his colleagues so that a change can be achieved. When it comes to that question, I can sleep well at night, because a lot is being talked about it and active work is being done for this.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is good that the member can sleep well at night when it comes to just this issue. It became a very watered-down proposal from the EU, which only landed on animal transport. It did not come the broad review of animal welfare that we had hoped for.

We have had deliberations with the State Secretary from the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure in our meetings in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. There, we had clear input and differing views regarding animal transport, as that was the matter on the table. It concerned, for example, that the EU would also reduce its time for transports from nine hours to eight hours, as we have in Sweden. But I perceived the State Secretary as very evasive. The State Secretary did not really want to take in these inputs and did not quite give the same picture as the one the member here describes – that one is leading in the discussions in this area within the EU. I am a bit concerned about that.

Why did the government and the State Secretary from the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure not support our co-submission to, for example, reduce transport times from nine to eight hours?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Stina Larsson for the questions!

I was not present at the committee meeting that the member refers to, but I know that when we discuss with the government, questions regarding animal welfare specifically are raised in different ways. The member says that she is concerned. I do not think she should be; I know that the member can be completely certain that the government is truly working to achieve a change.

We have the good example that I raised in my speech of how we have done in our country, and the member is very well acquainted with everything that has been done. In Sweden, our farmers have done a fantastic job, and we can thereby truly show that it is the Swedish model that is the best.

I am, as I have said, convinced that work is being done on the issue, and I assume that it will continue to be done.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

The Chairman highlights the outbreak of African swine fever. It has now been approximately eight months since it occurred, and thanks to very large sacrifices from citizens and companies in the affected municipalities, control over and a stop to the spread of the infection has now been achieved. This is important from several different perspectives and not least for animal welfare, as the infection is very painful for the individuals affected. It is also important for food production, as it can have very large consequences if the infection enters larger domestic pig herds.

The restrictions that the containment has brought have, however, had very large consequences for very many different types of businesses, even those that are not directly affected and therefore are entitled to compensation according to the epizootic law. This includes, among other things, companies in the tourism industry that offer accommodation and activities linked to nature experiences in the affected area. Restaurants and cafes also notice that fewer and fewer tourists are coming and staying overnight, eating out, and so on.

My question to the member is therefore whether that type of company can expect financial compensation and how long it will take in that case.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Sofia Skönnbrink for a very important question!

Just as the member was aware, we now know the consequences. For many years, we have talked and discussed in the committee about what this with the wild boar could mean. Now, unfortunately, it has shown that even Sweden can be affected. It has affected these municipalities, with businesses and farmers, in a terrible way.

I cannot answer exactly what is intended from the government's side. I know that compensation has been raised and this is being reviewed, but I cannot directly answer when, where, and how. It is impossible for me, because I do not have that contact with the government. But they are sitting right now and talking about which compensations can come.

I know, however, that letters and telephone calls have arrived from the municipalities, from representatives for the region, and from others raising these issues. It is terrible that it is in this way.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is appalling to say the least. The Committee on Environment and Agriculture visited Fagersta at the beginning of the year, and it was difficult not to be affected by the stories that various entrepreneurs and associations shared regarding the outbreak. I cannot avoid mentioning what my colleague Åsa Eriksson said in an interview: Had this been in Sälen or Åre, the handling would likely have looked completely different, because there are very many Stockholmers who want to be there and celebrate Easter holidays.

The last time I raised the issue of compensation to companies that are indirectly affected was during the special debate that we had early in the autumn in this matter. Then, the member's party colleague, also the Minister for Rural Affairs, told me to watch my tongue and not spread unnecessary alarm about whether everyone who was entitled to and in need of compensation would receive it. Obviously, there were reasons for my concern because the member still does not know when these companies will receive the compensation that has been promised.

It is not particularly easy to get people to want to visit these areas now, because it is fenced off and there are areas covered with warning signs. Right now, it is mostly known for having a contagious animal disease that is raging. We here in the chamber know that it is under control, but I do not think the public perception is the same.

The question is how the member thinks these companies can avoid bankruptcy without compensation from the state. If it is the case that no compensation is to be provided, what does the member then think the entrepreneurs should do to survive during this difficult time?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the follow-up question, Sofia Skönnbrink!

Obviously, the member has had conversations and discussions here in the chamber with the relevant minister, and that is perhaps the most important thing. But I take what the member says now and raise it once more. I know at the same time that letters with stories about what the member is referring to have arrived from the region, municipalities, and companies, so therefore I know that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices and at the ministry in order to follow up on it.

I cannot say more than that. It would be a bit strange if I were to promise things here and not know more than what I can say and stand by.

As the member himself was in, the municipalities and those who live there, the business community, farmers and everyone else, have turned out at 100 percent. It is important to include that in the context. If I understand correctly, every single wild boar has now been shot in the fence that has been built up around this, and the infection has been brought down. In that way, one can still feel that one has succeeded.

When it comes to the consequences, one can, as the member says, ask what would have happened if this had happened somewhere else in Sweden, in Åre or so. What would have become of it then?

It is incredibly important that we learn from the good example and from how the enormous concern that arose was resolved.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 7 so that I do not forget it.

In Sweden, we have strong animal welfare, and it is something that we are very proud of. We have many skilled farmers and animal owners who do their absolute best to take care of their animals. Animal welfare matters, and there is also a great desire to buy Swedish. This is very good.

But these animal welfare standards also entail great challenges. An international market also means that the competition is tough for the Swedish farmers. One is simply playing on an uneven playing field.

Animal welfare, however, has many advantages. In Sweden, we can eat eggs without a greater risk of salmonella, in Sweden the pig keeps its snout, and in Sweden no beaks are clipped. This is something that has very great support.

Still, when we go shopping, chicken fillets or pork fillets can lie next to each other where one is much cheaper than the other. One is produced in Sweden and the other is imported, and the one that is imported may have been produced in a way that would not even have been legal in Sweden. If Swedish agriculture had produced the product in the same way as the imported product is produced, it would have led to legal consequences. This is a major challenge for the Swedish farmers.

I am not saying that we should weaken our animal welfare laws. However, we need to work internationally and at the European level to raise animal welfare standards. Work was ongoing within the EU, but it did not amount to much. It resulted in laws and regulations for transport, which is good, but much more remains to be done. Now we have an EU election ahead of us, and that means there are new opportunities to improve the living conditions for animals across the EU - and also to strengthen Swedish competitiveness.

That is why we believe that Sweden should work for reinforced animal welfare within the EU by establishing a higher minimum level for animal welfare throughout the EU. Then the Swedish food producer can maintain a high standard for animal welfare, which in turn strengthens competitiveness. A raised minimum standard would also lead to a fairer competitive situation on the EU's internal market and contribute to a more uniform method for animal welfare within the union.

When we are talking about imported meat anyway: There are many who eat meat that is slaughtered in a way that one oneself considers to be unethical. In Sweden, it is not legal to slaughter without stunning, but it is in other countries – and such meat is imported to Sweden. We would like to see clearer labeling so that people can make more conscious choices, and in the second instance, we also want to see a ban on the import of meat from animals that have been slaughtered without stunning.

For the Sweden Democrats, animal welfare is a priority issue, and we Sweden Democrats make a difference even when it comes to animal welfare issues. Now we have also succeeded in getting through a notification based on a Sweden Democrat motion that the committee has backed. It concerns small-scale and farm-proximate slaughterhouses, which is something good. It means that the transports can become shorter for the animals.

Not everything in Sweden is completely perfect. Lately, we have been faced with many headlines about dogs that have committed attacks against both humans and animals. This is deeply problematic, especially since it is something that has increased recently. We have perhaps all seen different programs where this has been examined and where it appears that dogs have been marketed as dangerous death machines. It is deeply worrying.

What is positive is that the government has tasked Statskontoret with evaluating how the activities of the County Administrative Boards and the Police Authority regarding protecting the surroundings from dangerous dogs are functioning, as well as whether our current legislation actually works. I look forward to the continued work during the mandate period. It is positive that the government takes the issue seriously.

Something else that has happened within the area of animal welfare is the review of the mink industry. The mink industry has long been an integrated part of our agricultural landscape, but we now see that there is a need to review the mink industry. Therefore, we and the government have presented financial support of 180 million kronor for 2024-2025 to mink farmers who voluntarily phase out their operations. This makes it possible to phase out the operations in planned and orderly ways.

Through the support, we also show full respect for the investments that the mink farmers have made. Many may remember how Denmark slaughtered 13 million minks after the then Social Democratic government forced through a ban. This meant large economic losses for those who operated mink farms. This is the Social Democratic way of doing it, but we would rather see it happen in an orderly manner.

Released mink have also long been a problem. The mink industry has been subjected to sabotage which has led to many mink now threatening birdlife and causing major problems for the ecosystem. We have also seen that many animal rights activists have started targeting actors within other industries - pig farmers, poultry farmers and so on - which means that farmers do not feel safe. This is another major problem in Sweden that we take seriously. Farmers must also be able to feel safe at their workplace, and this is also something we want to improve.

There is much to talk about when it comes to animal welfare, and I will not have time to cover everything. In summary, however, a lot is happening in the area of animal welfare, and more is to be expected. A parliamentary term is short, and we are soon halfway through. But we see that in area after area, including the area of animal welfare, it matters which government rules the country.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I am actually very grateful that my Social Democratic colleagues in Denmark took a decision to cull mink to curb a global pandemic. I thank them for that.

I return to what we are discussing today. The member pointed out in his speech that the update of the EU-wide legislation on animal welfare was stopped. We also do not know when any new proposals will be presented regarding, for example, the keeping of animals, slaughter, and so on. I hear that it is a priority for the Sverigedemokraterna to strengthen animal welfare internationally, which they want to do, among other things, by strengthening the requirements in the EU. This is because they want to increase the competitiveness for Swedish farmers.

When the planned legislative package now does not come to fruition, it is very important that the work does not stall. Instead, we need to gear up and push so that the EU becomes a world leader specifically within the area of animal welfare. As the largest party in the government base, the Sverigedemokraterna have great opportunities to influence the policy pursued both nationally and internationally, that is to say also within the framework of the EU cooperation. Furthermore, the members of the European Parliament are candidates, and thus I think the members have very good insight both into what type of policy one wants to move forward and what policy one has pursued in the recent period.

Therefore, I would like to know what the Sweden Democrats themselves have done and plan to do to ensure that we can establish a modern, new and updated animal welfare legislation in the EU.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Sofia Skönnbrink for the question.

I do not believe that any party in the Riksdag is satisfied with what the work at the EU level turned out to be. This could contribute both to increasing the competitiveness for our Swedish farmers and to strengthening animal welfare. One is competing with poorer animal welfare. If two different products stand next to each other, one is produced in such a way that one has simply competed with animal welfare.

This is something that we consider a priority, also at the EU level. Now, the Sweden Democrats do not have any ministers who go down and negotiate, but in talks with the government, this is a priority issue. It is something we will continue to work on.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! It does not seem to be any clear plan from the Sweden Democrats' side for how they want to push for a change regarding animal welfare in the EU. This may be good for the voters to know before the EU election to be held on June 9 - keep that in mind.

Then the question is whether one will instead open up to restricting Swedish legislation. The member again raised that Swedish producers compete on unequal terms within the EU cooperation. During the previous year, the government appointed an inquiry to look at how the competitive conditions for Swedish farmers can be improved while high animal welfare requirements are maintained. What is meant by high animal welfare requirements can, for example, differ very much. We know, for instance, that the Kristdemokraterna, which is one of the Sverigedemokraterna's coalition parties, has requested to be granted an exemption from the grazing requirement. Last year, the member's own party colleague Martin Kinnunen, together with the Minister for Rural Affairs, signed a debate article where it was mentioned that space requirements and requirements for enrichment for pigs were cost-increasing measures for Swedish farmers.

My question to the member is therefore whether, instead of awaiting strengthened legislation in the EU, they will agree to restrictions in Swedish legislation. Which legal requirements would one, in that case, consider changing or removing?

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are many ways to push forward animal welfare policy. One way is to pressure the government, which negotiates in the Council of Ministers. Another way is to go through parliament. It is also important who is the commissioner.

As an individual member here in the Riksdag or in parliament, it is difficult – cooperation is needed to get anything passed. In the EU Parliament, cooperation occurs with other parties and other countries. What we can do here in the Riksdag is to pressure the government, and that is what we do as well.

I have a bit of difficulty speaking for the Kristdemokraterna's policy. However, I know that there is an investigation underway on how to make it more advantageous to be a farmer in Sweden. The investigation is to be presented on June 13, I believe, and I look forward to it. One wants to have a strong competitiveness without lowering the requirements for animal welfare. No farmer wants to lower their requirements, and no farmer wants the animals to suffer more.

I know that efforts are being made to find effective ways to make it more favorable. If agriculture needs to be shut down and we need to import more, then we have not won anything from an animal welfare perspective.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is, as said, misleadingly similar words and images that are used to describe the animal policy. I think a picture is being painted that could almost come from an advertising campaign. It sounds as if it is so fantastically good in Sweden. The only problem is that the rest of the world does not have the same standards.

I can agree that we have come a long way regarding antibiotics and in many other areas, but the important thing is that we constantly press on and push forward to advance animal welfare.

An investigation is currently underway concerning strengthening the competitiveness of food producers and regarding strengthened animal welfare. What worries me about this is that grazing rights are being pointed out as a burden on competitiveness. I thought that we in this chamber were reasonably in agreement that Swedish food and Swedish animal welfare are something we should be proud of and that we should try to find feasible political paths to strengthen competitiveness without weakening animal welfare.

That animals are not allowed to stay outdoors for a large part of their lives is not compatible with natural behavior. My question is therefore whether the Sverigedemokraterna stand up for the right of access to grazing land.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Rebecka Le Moine, for the question!

We still have challenges in Sweden, even though animal welfare here is better than in many countries. It is important that one can combine animal welfare with competitiveness. An investigation is currently underway, as the member mentioned, and I cannot anticipate it.

The grazing requirement is something that the Sweden Democrats have worked for even at the EU level. The Sweden Democrats have tried to push for a grazing compensation to make it more advantageous to have a grazing requirement. This was, however, something that the previous government, in which the Green Party sat, stopped. Even earlier, when we sat in pure opposition, we in the Sweden Democrats tried to push for the grazing requirement.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I find it very difficult to imagine that Miljöpartiet would have actively stopped the grazing rights. I think we should see and talk about this as a right and not just as a demand, because it is still about living beings. In the language, one hears nuances and differences in values.

It is, as said, very fine words. The Sweden Democrats have a high tail-wagging, but still, they use a very large amount of their animal policy and their speaking space to target halal slaughter. What do the Sweden Democrats think about the 200,000 hens that sit in cages? What do the Sweden Democrats think about the extreme breeding that makes it so that chicks live their entire lives with extreme growth pain before they are slaughtered? It is about 100 million every year. What do the Sweden Democrats think about the fact that there are individuals who are indoors for their entire lives? LRF has had an exemption pushed through that cows can be indoors for 18 months.

Is it right to expend all one's energy talking about halal slaughter when there are real and very serious animal welfare problems in Sweden? I think it shows how transparent Sverigedemokraternas commitment to animal policy is.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I did, however, have difficulty perceiving any actual question.

Now it is called "beteskrav" (grazing requirements). I do not know if the member wants to change the name of it. Those who wish to can submit a motion regarding this.

There are absolutely deficiencies, but most animal owners want the very best for their animals. There are a few cases where owners have mistreated the animals, and that is regrettable. What do the Sweden Democrats think about that? Well, that is not how it should be, and therefore there are laws and rules to follow.

I do not agree that the Sweden Democrats' animal welfare policy is only about halal slaughter. I advise the member to read the Sweden Democrats' committee motion. It does not only state about halal slaughter there, but it is a small part. There is much more policy to drive than just slaughter without stunning.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I am not the first to say this in the speaker's chair in today's debate, but Sweden is and shall be a leading country when it comes to animal welfare. We shall speak with a clear voice in the EU. Animal welfare must be strengthened throughout the union and also at an international level.

Taking good care of animals is a measure of value on how a society is organized. Strong animal welfare not only provides animals with decent living conditions, but it also gives us healthy food and is an important piece in pushing back antibiotic resistance at the gate. The question of animal welfare is by no means new. Sweden received its first animal welfare legislation in the middle of the 1800s.

Madam Speaker! In the report we are now debating, there is much that I would like to focus on and spend time on, but I choose to spend my time on mink breeding - or the fur industry, if one prefers. If I am correctly informed, there have been fur farms in Sweden for over a hundred years. To keep animals in a small area solely for the sake of their fur is, in my opinion, wrong and has no place in a modern society. Already in 1995, the first Folkparti motion was submitted to the Riksdag with a petition to ban fur breeding in cages. New legislation in 2001 resulted in all fox farms in Sweden being gradually closed, and the last chinchilla farm in Sweden was closed in 2014.

When it comes to mink farming, animal welfare requirements have been tightened step by step, but Sweden has not been the most ambitious country in Europe. But now we actually see the end of mink farming as well. In this year's budget bill, 180 million is allocated for voluntary decommissioning of mink farms during this and next year, and it shall be done in a planned and orderly manner. The support will be paid out to companies that voluntarily decommission their operations. The Government has also announced the possibility of introducing a ban if decommissioning does not occur voluntarily. The industry has already announced that it is likely that the last mink farm will close before the end of the year.

Madam Speaker! Humans have at all times kept animals for the sake of food, wool, and skins. This entails a responsibility for the animals' welfare. Taking a stand for a phase-out of the mink farming industry is not about being against animal husbandry; it is about animal protection. It means that a part of animal husbandry simply must be phased out for the sake of the animals, and so it will now happen.

Madam Speaker! I do not intend to stand here and take all the credit for this, absolutely not. The issue has been driven by many in and outside of politics for a long time. But right now, it is actually the Tidö parties who are governing the country and delivering the policy that will ensure the mink farming industry is phased out. For me, this is a liberal victory and a victory for common sense and a better society. But above all, it is a victory for animal welfare. This, if anything, shows a commitment to the animal rights issue. It matters who governs Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

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

Vänsterpartiet believes that it is high time to improve animal welfare policy so that it is based to a greater extent on respect for animals. In our motion on animal welfare from 2022, more can be read about our proposals.

Madam Speaker! In today's debate, I will focus on the irregularities within the poultry industry. Unfortunately, there is a systematic animal cruelty occurring in several of Sweden's poultry factories. I will provide some examples.

SVT:s Uppdrag granskning examined the conditions within breeding in the Swedish poultry industry in a report last year. In the report, it emerged that a multinational company, despite pointed out deficiencies from the County Administrative Board, spun and trampled to death animals that were conscious.

The organization Djurens Rätt mapped last year the inspections carried out at the country's four largest chicken factories. They reviewed the inspection reports made by Livsmedelsverket and the county administrative boards. The mapping showed that in a total of 60 percent of the inspections, major deficiencies were discovered. All chicken factories had problems with crushed wings and heads, high mortality in transport, and corrosion damage from excrement.

It was noted that the most common animal welfare deficiency for chickens last year was a high proportion of corrosion damage under the chickens' feet and skin peeled down to the musculature. This obviously means great suffering as the chickens are in such a dirty environment that it has caused injuries under their feet. Nevertheless, they have been transported to the slaughterhouse where they have been forced to sit in transport cages for several hours.

Another problem is that they use crossbred broiler chickens, chickens that are bred to develop large breast muscles as quickly as possible for meat production. Their slaughter age is normally 35 days, but they grow so fast that they experience pain, become sick, and die prematurely.

These are some examples of what occurs within the Swedish chicken industry.

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

In our budget, we have proposed an increased appropriation of 100 million kronor to expand the county administrative boards' animal welfare inspections. It is a step in the right direction to strengthen animal welfare within the poultry industry, among other things, but it is not enough. There is also a need for strengthened requirements for better conditions.

More measures are needed to improve the chickens' opportunities to behave naturally and avoid suffering. For example, one should ensure that the chickens have access to a larger area, introduce a ban on cage-reared chickens, and introduce improved stunning methods and improved opportunities for natural behavior and outdoor access.

Vänsterpartiet believes that it is high time that Sweden now takes steps for strengthened animal welfare and for a reduced industrial chicken production. The government needs to address the problems and suffering that become ever clearer with each passing year through practical action.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Animals should be well-off and protected from suffering. Unfortunately, that is not the case everywhere today, and therefore it is important that we have this debate on animal welfare. Animals should, as far as possible, be able to express their instincts and be able to perform their natural behavior.

Sweden is far ahead in animal welfare, infection control, and animal health. For example, pigs are allowed to move freely and keep their tails, and piglets are allowed to stay with the sow longer here in Sweden than in the rest of Europe. We also have Europe's healthiest animals, which reduces the animals' need for antibiotics. Someone who has come into contact with a dog in Sweden does not need to worry about rabies either.

Good Swedish animal welfare pays off – for the animals, for the environment and for public health, but unfortunately not always for the Swedish farmer. It simply costs a little more to let the chickens and pigs have more room to move and to let the cows go out in the summer.

Sweden is a pioneer in many areas of animal welfare, and we know that animal welfare is primarily guaranteed through the farmer's competence and how well the production system meets the animals' needs. I and the Center Party believe that the Swedish farmers should be given good conditions so that they can continue to produce food with the world's best animal welfare.

It was a great disappointment when the countries within the EU failed to reach an agreement on new laws for animal husbandry. What was presented was a watered-down proposal on animal transport. Instead of the maximum of eight hours that Sweden has as a rule for transport of animals to slaughter, nine hours are now proposed – which could result in even more hours in the truck for the animals if the drivers need to take breaks.

Every year, around 1.5 billion animals are transported either within the EU or between EU countries. Often, the conditions are, to say the least, undignified, and sometimes the animals are completely without food and water. There are already rules and laws for these animal transports, but the problem is that they are not properly followed. Something must change. Therefore, a minimum amount for fines that can be issued within the EU is needed when someone violates the animal welfare act.

The EU should therefore become more Swedish when it comes to livestock farming. Our farmers take care of their animals and know that it is a good investment that yields high quality in our food. It also results in healthier animals with low use of antibiotics. The Center Party wants to introduce binding requirements for at least a 50 percent reduction in the amount of antibiotics given to livestock, with exceptions for pioneers such as Sweden, and that the EU pushes for a global Paris Agreement on antibiotic use.

The EU must also stop the mutilation of animals that is done completely unnecessarily all over Europe. It is completely absurd that a farmer in Belgium can order a machine online for under a thousand and then start cutting off the beaks of its chickens. We want instead to demand measures such as access to straw and occupation and optimal lighting, feed composition and care of the litter that make chickens peck at each other less.

Madam Speaker! I and the Center Party want to introduce a total ban on routine tail docking of pigs and a total ban on beak trimming of chickens within the EU. It is time for the EU to adapt to the Swedish legislation and stop mutilating these animals.

Madam Speaker! We have also for several years had a discussion and debate regarding the shortage of veterinarians in Sweden. We know that there is a shortage of veterinarians, especially in the more sparsely populated parts of the country. This can lead to poor access to veterinary care and high costs for farmers and animal owners. We also see that more and more people are getting animals, but if animal healthcare does not keep up with the demand, this will become a painful and life-threatening consequence.

Sweden today has too few Swedish educational places for veterinarians, while the regulatory framework makes it difficult to recruit non-Swedish-speaking personnel from abroad. Having foreign labor has saved many animal lives in Sweden and will continue to do so, as the situation stands. The absurdity speaks for itself when the industry today recruits more Swedes who have studied to become veterinarians abroad than Swedes who have been educated at SLU. There is a strong imbalance in the education system that must be rectified.

The veterinary area has been investigated many times, and I and the Center Party consider it high time to put forward new measures. Some of our proposals are to let more animal caretakers relieve veterinarians and ensure that there are more training places for specifically animal caretakers, as well as to increase the support for the on-call duty for district veterinarians and change the requirement that records should only be written in Swedish, and furthermore to increase the international cooperation within the education system for veterinarians for better cooperation between the European countries.

The shortage of veterinarians also affects the general public in the form of deteriorated infection control and poorer conditions for producing food. It also increases vulnerability during crises and war.

I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 8.

Madam Speaker! Recently, the debate has heated up regarding a ban or no ban on fighting dogs. It is not really so strange, as it evokes emotions when people and animals are bitten and subjected to attacks by dogs.

What should we do to stop this? Should we ban certain dog breeds as has been done in Norway and Denmark? No, that is not what I think. Bans rarely contribute to a solution. Instead, creativity is high, and the problem is bypassed; in our neighboring country Denmark, it still occurs that people are bitten by dogs, despite a ban. The statistics from the Swedish police show that it is many mixed-breed dogs that have been taken into custody after various incidents, not only fighting dogs.

It is therefore necessary to have clearer requirements for our breeders. It is not reasonable that all different dog breeds should be crossed with one another and that anyone should be able to buy such a puppy. There are today rules and guidelines regarding how dogs should be kept, and it is naturally important that these are followed.

The most important thing to address the dog attacks is that we set requirements for the dog owner. Today, there is good information for new dog owners who need support when they are going to choose a dog breed. Kennel clubs and associations organize training and provide information to describe responsibility and work preventatively.

The County Administrative Boards need to have faster supervision and handling of cases in order to be able to seize dogs or impose requirements on muzzle use or leash requirements. Unfortunately, dogs are sometimes used in criminal contexts, and the authorities have difficulty getting in contact with dog owners who make themselves untraceable. The police therefore need to be involved in an effective manner. If a dog owner on repeated occasions lets their dog attack other people, the dog should be euthanized.

Having a dog means a great joy and freedom in life for many. With this freedom comes also a responsibility to ensure that the dog feels well and that it does not attack either people or other dogs, regardless of which breed it is. It is usually the dog owner who is the problem, not the dog or the breed.

In conclusion, I want to say that Sweden is a pioneer in many areas of animal welfare. I and the Center Party want to ensure a high level of animal welfare even outside our country's borders by pushing other countries in the EU. Special efforts are needed to increase the proportion of veterinarians who work with livestock, and we need to ensure that the legislation we have regarding animal welfare is complied with in a good way.

Centerpartiet will continue to push forward on animal welfare issues as stubbornly in Sweden as in the European Parliament.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! In this debate, we are discussing animal policy. It is an issue that engages, not least within my own party.

We in Miljöpartiet build our policy on three solidarities: solidarity with all people, both now and in the future, solidarity with nature, and solidarity with animals. We believe that animals should have a right to their lives, to good lives, regardless of utility for us humans. Animals should not be allowed to exist solely for our sake.

Madam Speaker! Our ideology is, however, far from reflected in reality. In the way we humans have chosen to act, the idea that man stands above all others dominates. As a kind of God's creation, we have taken it upon ourselves to reduce ecosystems to resources and animals to units. This transgression we have not only happened to commit here and there, but we have systematized it.

We have placed the oppression of non-human life into systems in order to systematically squeeze the money out of life - both the individuals and the web of life that supports the ecosystems, animal by animal, species by species. This happens when we fundamentally apply capitalism as the dominant way of organizing the economy in combination with economic growth.

We effectively convert living economy into dead economy, and the dead economy has requirements to grow every year. The result is that 97 percent of the earth's biomass on land consists of domesticated mammals that we humans eat. Only 3 percent consists of wild animals. The result is that 75 percent of the earth's land area has been converted so that we can grow food, also for the animals that we in turn eat. Still, Madam Speaker, there is a widespread hunger in the world.

The result is that we live in both a species crisis and a climate crisis, with great risks of future pandemics due to our way of producing food for humans. It is unethical, it is inefficient, and it will cost a lot.

We must rethink. Perhaps it is not through more artificial fertilizer, more pesticides, and more and larger animal industries that we solve hunger. We need to work with nature instead of against it, and this includes parts such as regenerative agriculture, increasing and favoring the small-scale, locally produced and organic, as well as making a protein shift where plant-based can become the norm.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps someone here in the chamber or someone listening has heard the news that the most common bird in Sweden, the willow warbler, has decreased in number. It is not the first year this has happened, but it has happened for many years in a row. But the fact is that it is not the most common bird in Sweden, it is the chicken.

Every year, over 100 million chickens are killed, and it is just one of many frightening examples of nature shrinking and wild animals becoming fewer while exploitation and industrialization expand.

We have just had Easter, and many have surely decorated their homes with small cute chicks that are carefully adorned. A decorative chick receives more and greater care than a living chick.

Madam Speaker! The poultry industry has little to do with good animal husbandry. It is an industry that does not take into account that every chicken is a living and sentient being. The average Swedish chicken farm has approximately 100,000 chickens per rearing cycle, which is higher than the average in most other EU countries. The Swedish chickens are raised in industrial processes without the possibility of meeting their mothers or other adult individuals.

The majority of producers in Sweden are members of Svensk Fågel, which allows for a much higher density of chickens - up to 25 chickens per square meter. It is therefore more crowded than for the hens that are kept in cages within the egg industry and resembles the conditions that chickens have in other countries.

Madam Speaker! The life of a chicken looks like this: after they have been hatched, the dead and injured chicks are usually sorted out for slaughter, and this is done partly to avoid cannibalism due to a shortage of food.

The absolute vast majority of the chickens raised in Sweden are bred to grow extremely fast, so-called broiler chickens. From the moment they are born, they live with constant painful growth pains in order to provide maximum meat production. For the chicken, this means, of course, great pain, disease, and premature death.

Madam Speaker! A Swedish study from 2007 shows that approximately 90 percent of the chickens had impaired mobility, which suggests that they experience pain and difficulties walking due to their heavy bodies and fast-growing nature. The Swedish broiler chickens live their lives for only 35 days before they are slaughtered. Many chickens, however, die before that age, if one can even call 35 days an age, due to disease, stress, and bone problems.

The transport of the chickens that survive is also a death trap, where approximately 150,000 chickens die every year in Sweden, which is higher than for other animal species. If the chicken survives the transport, it is time for slaughter. They are then stunned either with electricity or with carbon dioxide. If they are to be stunned with electricity, they are hung upside down while fully conscious and dipped into an electric bath. This is unpleasant and painful, and it also involves a large risk that the chickens do not receive the stunning they are supposed to receive according to law.

Now we have only talked about the chickens, but the parents of the broiler chickens suffer from the same biological prison. In order that they do not die prematurely, they must live with constant hunger, that is, systematic starvation.

Madam Speaker! I will now move on to the eggs. Record numbers of eggs are eaten during Easter. Despite the fact that the animal welfare law adopted by the Riksdag in 1988 contained a clear requirement that no hens should be kept in cages after 1998, approximately 200,000 hens are still kept in cages in Sweden today. The space per hen is smaller than the A4 sheets where our speeches fit. The hen cannot stretch out its wings properly.

Madam Speaker! It does not have to be this way. Future generations will probably read about this with horror in the history books. It is possible to raise chickens without this enormous suffering. This is an extreme breeding that must be banned. There are alternative breeds. Furthermore, the chickens must be given more space and the opportunity for outdoor access.

Regarding the keeping of animals, it must be a total ban. The same things that have been argued for previously here regarding mink must also apply to the hens.

Madam Speaker! I will now move to a point within animal policy where there has been consensus within Swedish politics until very recently, when the government's latest budget was presented. It concerns the painful animal experiments. Animal testing is an outdated and risky way to develop medicines, pharmaceuticals, and other products, and therefore 3R centers have worked to function as a hub, disseminate information, and promote research without animal testing. The current government has, however, chosen in its budget to abolish the state funding, and the number of people working with this has been reduced from twelve to three employees.

In 2021, 243,009 animal experiments were reported in Sweden according to the EU's definition, which includes the most severe cases, i.e., particular suffering for animals. It is difficult to grasp that it concerns so many animal experiments where particular suffering lies behind. I must believe, Madam Speaker, that neither researchers, companies nor politicians actually want to subject animals to unnecessary suffering. That is what I hope. That is why it is important to move from animals as test models to other more accurate models that do not involve great suffering.

Madam Speaker! Animal policy is often a low-priority topic in national politics. When it is taken up, it is because of various scandals that surface. Then politicians and parties give somewhat surprised and frantic comments, time and again. We have heard several such cases. It has been about fighting dogs, factory-farmed chickens, and so on. For Miljöpartiet, no scandals were needed for us to know that animal welfare is an issue that must be prioritized higher. We are not surprised, and we do not forget the scandals. We see it for what it is: a systemic failure.

The Green Party sees the arbitrariness and the differences regarding the supervision of animal welfare in Sweden, and that is why we advocate for an animal welfare authority. It would receive a clear mandate to work for improved animal welfare through, among other things, rule development and to increase knowledge about animal welfare and animal husbandry. Today, the Swedish Board of Agriculture is the responsible authority, but animal welfare is more than just an agricultural issue. Animal welfare should be treated as an issue in its own right, and therefore animal welfare issues for wild-living animals as well as for animals kept by humans should be gathered under a new animal welfare authority.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say something about wild animals. In Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act, it is stated that the law only concerns animals kept by humans. This means – and this is something not so many are aware of – that wild animals today are not covered by the law. It concerns conditions for sale, harm, and transport. Here, other countries such as Norway, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Poland have come much further. Miljöpartiet believes that we should also work to include wild animals in the Swedish Animal Welfare Act.

Animal Welfare

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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