Animal welfare

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's strongest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that. Our farmers live up to extensive requirements when it comes to space, grazing, supervision, and care. It is part of the Swedish model. We produce food with high ethical ambitions.

But high ambitions cost money. The animal welfare compensation, which is administered by Jordbruksverket within the framework of the EU's common agricultural policy, exists for a reason. It is an acknowledgment that if society sets higher requirements than the minimum requirements, society must also be prepared to take its share of the cost. It does not work to send the bill to Swedish farmers and at the same time open the door for cheap imports from countries with lower requirements. It is neither fair, sustainable, nor responsible.

Madam Speaker! Today, the animal welfare compensation covers certain species, primarily within cattle and sheep production and parts of pig production. But the Sweden Democrats' ambition is clear. We want to expand the animal welfare compensation to more species. Why? Yes, we want that because the reality looks the same regardless of the species. Higher animal welfare requirements mean larger areas, more work, better stable environments, more supervision, and higher production costs. This does not only apply to cows and sheep, but it also applies to poultry and other parts of animal production.

If we mean business with Sweden continuing to have world-class animal welfare, we must create the economic conditions for it. Otherwise, we risk two things: first, that Swedish producers are wiped out, and second, that production moves abroad to countries where the animals have it worse. It would be a double failure, both for the countryside and for the animals.

Madam Speaker! It is easy to speak warmly about animal welfare in this chamber, but it is on the farms across Sweden where reality is decided. When electricity prices, feed costs, and regulatory burdens increase while competition from imports intensifies, the policy must be realistic. The Sweden Democrats believe that higher animal welfare is a political ambition, and political ambitions should be financed politically. Swedish farmers should not alone bear the costs for our shared values.

An expanded animal welfare compensation is therefore not a subsidy in the broadest sense. It is a tool to strengthen Swedish food production, strengthen the self-sufficiency rate, and safeguard competitiveness. It is also about preparedness. In an uneasy world, Sweden needs a strong domestic food production. We cannot, at the same time, undermine profitability by imposing requirements without compensating for them.

Madam Speaker! Let us also lift our gaze towards the European perspective. Animal welfare compensations are handled within the framework of the EU's common agricultural policy, where each member state develops a national strategic plan that is approved by the European Commission. This means that the systems look different in different countries. The EU sets up minimum rules for animal welfare, but in many cases, Sweden is far above these minimum levels. That is something we are proud of.

The problem arises when Swedish farmers compete in the same internal market as producers in countries with lower requirements and thus lower costs. As long as the EU does not harmonize animal welfare at a higher level throughout the union, the competitive differences will persist.

There are those who argue that the solution is for Sweden to adapt downwards, but that is not our path. Our line is clear. We shall stand firm on world-class animal welfare. We shall push in the EU for higher common minimum requirements. But until then, we must ensure that Swedish producers do not alone bear the costs for our higher ambitions. Either we raise the level across all of Europe, or we fully compensate our producers here at home. Doing nothing is not an option.

Madam Speaker! We shall not lower our animal welfare requirements to meet a lower European level. We shall stand firm by them. But then the state must be prepared to take responsibility. The Sweden Democrats' ambition is therefore clear. We must extend the animal welfare compensation to more species, ensure long-term stability in the support, and see to it that Swedish farmers can continue to be the best in the world without incurring a loss. It is good for the animals, it is good for the countryside, and it is good for Sweden.

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

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

The Animal Welfare Act stipulates that animals shall be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering. This applies throughout their entire lives, including at the end of life.

Before Christmas, Aftonbladet highlighted the controversial stunning method of carbon dioxide stunning during the slaughter of pigs. We know that this method causes severe stress and discomfort for the pigs before they lose consciousness. We Social Democrats have been clear that more research is needed on alternative methods in order to eventually be able to replace carbon dioxide with gentler solutions.

It is not as clear what the Sweden Democrats want. In the interview with Aftonbladet, Markus Wiechel said that carbon dioxide stunning is one of the most disgusting parts of the meat industry and that it is inconceivable that it is permitted. In the same interview, Martin Kinnunen said that it is not strange that the method is still used because it is about competitiveness and that Sweden must have the same rules as other countries have. He is also clear that competitiveness must come first if consumers are not willing to fully pay for higher animal welfare.

My question to the member, Madam Speaker, is whether the Sweden Democrats want to see a phasing out of carbon dioxide stunning during the slaughter of pigs.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

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

How we are to reduce the suffering for animals during slaughter and at the same time get Swedish consumers to be willing to pay for it is a constant balancing act.

If, for example, every department in a grocery store today had to carry itself, the price of fruit and vegetables would be much lower, while the price of meat would be higher. It would be a first step to get Swedish consumers used to the fact that we must learn to pay more for Swedish products and Swedish meat so that we can also have a more humane slaughter when it comes to the slaughtering.

An article just came out about how they have started researching another type of anesthesia during the slaughter of pigs. Now I don't quite remember which journal it was in, but it was in one of the ones we received the other day.

There was a woman who wrote that extensive renovations of the slaughterhouses would be required to be able to carry this out. Then the question arises whether there is a possibility to proceed with it, but it sounded like a better proposal than today's methods.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not really know if I became any wiser from that answer. The fact is that there seem to be very different opinions internally within the Sverigedemokraterna regarding which path to take. One says that it is inconceivable that this is allowed, and the other says that it must remain so for Swedish producers to be able to compete with colleagues in Europe and the rest of the world. I would like to know if the Sverigedemokraterna are nevertheless willing to ensure that research is conducted on alternative methods, even if it entails costs and major reconstructions? It is precisely this that the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet are now standing behind. We want to see more research. It would be interesting to know what the Sverigedemokraterna think on that question.

But it is not only when it comes to carbon sequestration that it is difficult to know what the Sweden Democrats want. I will bring up one more thing.

On the Sweden Democrats' Facebook and Instagram pages, one can see how Jimmie Åkesson plays with dogs and simultaneously puts forward the message that no one should have to be ruined when one's pet is seriously ill. It states there that the Sweden Democrats will follow the developments and investigate what can be done in the long run to counteract and reduce unjustifiably high veterinary care costs.

Madam Speaker! A clear reason for the high veterinary costs in Sweden is that large veterinary companies with profit requirements have taken over large parts of the market. My colleague Malin Larsson raised this in an exchange of remarks with Staffan Eklöf, and then he said that he got shivers and that it sounded a bit too socialist to regulate the market. Staffan Eklöf did not believe at all in stepping in and changing a market that largely works, but instead, he wanted to influence with various soft signals.

My question to the member is therefore: What are the signals that the Sverigedemokraterna shall use to press the price of veterinary care in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the veterinary prices, we will hopefully very soon receive the results from the investigation on price transparency. After that, I hope we can move forward with some form of measures.

Then one must also remind oneself that it was during the previous parliamentary term, when the Social Democrats were in power, that the large companies took over the market. Today, it is in practice dominated by two large companies. There is a question: How could this happen? Was there really support within the competition legislation for them to totally dominate the market? And is there actually a possibility for the state agencies such as SLU and the District Veterinarians to engage in price competition? That remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation concludes. I believe that we in all parties agree that one should not have to be ruined because one has a pet that one cares for.

When it comes to the slaughter methods for pigs, we must ensure that there are more alternatives. We need to develop more alternatives and investigate what they can lead to when it comes to reducing the suffering for pigs. I believe that is also something we all agree on. Then it is very possible that they can also be implemented, but it is a matter of getting everyone on board. I look forward to more research in that area.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would start by moving for the approval of reservation 2 immediately, so that it does not turn out like yesterday, when the Speaker had to ask me one extra time.

Mr. Speaker! We are here today to debate animal welfare. I actually thought I would start a bit personally and tell about when I was little and it was time for us to get chickens.

I grew up in a villa outside Karlstad on the edge of a residential area, with two sides facing the forest. That has meant that we may have had a few more animals than one usually has in a villa garden.

Among other things, we would therefore get chickens. We went to a poultry farm – or rather a hatchery – in Kil, where eggs were produced. I know that mom said I should stay in the car, because I wasn't allowed to go in and look. We came out with a banana carton with three spent laying hens in it. They weren't doing well. They had done their part in the production and would probably be gassed to death and burned, quite simply. I don't know if we got them for free or if we paid a symbolic amount, but they came home.

They didn't have many feathers left. But after moving into the playroom and getting a few days, they became beautiful: Gertrud, Gullan and Bruna Bönan. Bruna Bönan was obviously mine. They had a fantastic life and laid many eggs, even though they otherwise would have been seen as spent.

A little later we also got a rooster of another breed, but the hens didn't like him, so he mostly had to live inside with me. I remember that we shared Mozartkuler: I ate up the chocolate, and he got to eat up the marzipan. Mom was not so happy that the expensive birthday chocolate was gone.

Why am I telling this then? Well, there are no more caged chickens in Sweden anymore. What was then the standard is now but a memory. We have had several debates over the last few weeks about precisely Swedish food production and Swedish foodstuffs. Much of what we talk about when we talk about animal welfare is about production animals, even though there is also much more.

We are all very happy, I believe, that the cage rabbits are gone. But that does not mean the problems are gone. Even though we have stood here and beaten our breasts for Swedish food production, there are still downsides.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to talk about broiler chickens – fast-growing chicken breeds that we use for meat production when it comes to chicken. In Sweden, we use a breed that increases its size by 50 times in 35 days. The chickens grow so fast that they cannot keep up. When they are slaughtered at 35 days of age, they often weigh over 2 kilos.

It speaks for itself that they do not feel well from growing so fast. We see footpad lesions, skin problems, heart and lung problems, and an increased risk of bone and gait problems. We see decreased activity. But this is not the worst, because these chickens also have parents.

The hen and the rooster who are to become parents to these little chicks must get older and reach egg-laying age. If you give them as much food as they want, the legs cannot handle carrying them. Therefore, they are kept on a starvation diet so that they do not grow too fast. One sees that the hens almost drink themselves to death. You have to ration the water to try to satisfy their hunger.

This cannot be right, and it cannot be worthy of Swedish animal husbandry. In 2023, Uppdrag granskning showed a film of this, which received wide distribution. In our neighboring country Norway, it caused an outcry. There, a phase-out is now underway. These chickens will not be in production when this year is over. In Sweden, however, nothing is happening – absolutely nothing! Here we have a major problem.

From the Green Party's side, we want to see a ban on the fast-growing breeds. I believe that they are already prohibited today, as this violates the Animal Welfare Act and animal welfare. Such things must not be allowed to happen. I hope that my colleagues, regardless of party, are also joining in to stop this. That we should stop torturing animals in this way cannot be a matter of demand.

Mr. Speaker! Do you know how many chickens are slaughtered every year in Sweden? We are talking about over 110 million lives that become 35 days old and have grown to 2 kilos from a small egg. It cannot be right.

Mr. Speaker! There are also other issues when it comes to poultry. In Sweden, all eggs are hatched, and then the male chicks are sorted out. They are removed immediately and ground down or are turned into heat or something of the sort. In many other countries, for example again Norway, this is being phased out. A bio-scanning is performed instead and the eggs are sexed beforehand, so that one avoids hatching male chicks. Instead, one only gets those hens that actually lay eggs.

Why don't we do this in Sweden? The only answer I have received is: It will be a bit more expensive. But is it worth it that every other egg contains a pullet, which we then slaughter immediately? We hatch an animal that then dies.

A change must occur here. We want to see a mandatory sex determination of eggs, so that when the techniques are used, one manages to achieve up to 95–98 percent hens instead of every other one being a rooster.

Mr. Speaker! We often say that we are a pioneering country, but when it comes to feathers, we are not. We see that in our Nordic neighboring countries, they are ahead. Turky chicks and egg selection should be history. It is not worthy of Swedish food production. We want to see a ban here.

We also want to see that slow-growing breeds are obtained, which have a greater possibility for natural behavior. In the same way that we see that the cages are gone, we then see that the animals are allowed to have a more natural behavior and that they are allowed to grow at the intended pace.

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say on this subject. I hope that we will be able to return to this in different parts of the debate, in replies and otherwise. But for us in Miljöpartiet, it is incredibly important with animal welfare and that the animals should have a natural behavior. We want to see more animals outside, and we want the minimum level of animal protection to be raised in Sweden but also in the whole EU, so that we do not instead import these problems.

(Applause)

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating animal welfare. It is about the laws, rules, and principles that exist to ensure that animals are treated well and protected from suffering.

For us Moderates, it is important to have a well-functioning and purposeful animal welfare system. The focus should be on strengthening animal welfare, while the regulatory framework should be designed so that it works in practice for the country's animal owners and companies.

Sweden is far ahead when it comes to animal welfare. That is naturally good. I find it difficult to see that anyone here could be against good animal welfare. At the same time, it must not be that the high animal welfare requirements mean that Swedish food producers are disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint. That is unfortunately how it has been, and that is partially still the case. No one – not even our animals – benefits from Swedish farmers being competed out because Sweden has higher animal welfare requirements than other countries and that production instead moves to countries with significantly poorer animal welfare. It is not fair to either the farmers or the animals.

The Swedish government is therefore pushing forward in the work for improved animal welfare rules in the EU. The rules should correspond to at least the standard in Sweden. The issue is a priority for the government.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has previously been able to pay out animal welfare compensation within the framework of the EU's common agricultural policy if the animal owner has taken extra animal welfare measures. That is, of course, good. What, on the other hand, has been less good is that the compensation has only been able to be paid out for measures that have exceeded Sweden's national requirements in the legislation. Since Sweden has higher animal welfare requirements than other EU countries, it has therefore not previously been possible to compensate our Swedish farmers for the extra animal welfare they have had.

For example, it has not been possible to provide compensation to the dairy farmers because Sweden's dairy cows are allowed to graze outside – this is because the grazing requirement for the Swedish dairy cows is enshrined in law in Sweden. Now we have changed that. The Swedish government has succeeded in securing an amendment to the EU's regulatory framework which now makes it possible to provide compensation to our Swedish farmers for letting their cows graze outside.

In the budget for 2026, 282 million has been allocated to compensate our Swedish dairy farmers with 1,000 kronor per cow. It is both reasonable and fair, and it is a success for the Swedish government's diligent work.

For us Moderates, it is obvious that our hard-working Swedish farmers should be rewarded for the extra efforts it involves to have the dairy cows out. Furthermore, the government has tasked the Swedish Board of Agriculture to develop a proposal for animal welfare compensation also for heifers. The purpose of that support is twofold – partly to increase beef production throughout the country, and partly to contribute to the biodiversity that results from grazing cattle.

Mr. Speaker! These are serious times in Europe. War is ongoing in our neighborhood. Sweden needs to strengthen both its defense and its civil preparedness. Against that background, it is particularly serious that we have a low self-sufficiency rate when it comes to food. Only half of the food consumed in Sweden is produced here. In 1990, the corresponding figure was 75 percent.

It would be good for both the countryside, the climate, and animal welfare if a larger proportion of our food were produced on Swedish farms. In order to achieve this, the number of grazing animals needs to increase. This applies to both sheep and cattle.

When speaking about the importance of more grazing animals and animal welfare, it is however difficult not to mention the problem with the increased predator attacks. In 2024, we had almost 150 confirmed predator attacks on sheep and cattle – attacks by wolf or lynx. In total, nearly 500 animals were killed or injured in these attacks. From an animal welfare perspective, it can be stated that these domestic animals were subjected to enormous suffering.

The increased predator populations are a real problem from an animal welfare perspective. It is also a problem because it is an obstacle to increased food production. If one seriously wants us to have more grazing animals in Sweden, one cannot turn a blind eye to the major animal welfare problem that increased predator populations entail. Where there are dense predator populations, the willingness to keep grazing animals also decreases. That is why we Moderates want to minimize the Swedish wolf population to 170 individuals. We also want to significantly simplify the rules for protection hunting. The starting point should be: If a wolf is shot in direct connection to an enclosure where domestic animals are kept, it is to be regarded as permitted protection hunting. We also want it to be less restrictive when it comes to protection hunting of wolves in connection with hunting with roaming dogs.

Mr. Speaker! In some of the motions addressed in the report, the availability of veterinarians is raised, as well as the fact that prices for veterinary care have risen sharply in recent years.

Access to veterinarians around the clock across the entire country is a prerequisite for the possibility of maintaining good animal welfare and good animal health. Today, it is the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) that has the responsibility to ensure that there is access to veterinarians regardless of the time of day.

According to a survey from LRF some years ago, one in three livestock keepers stated that they lacked access to a veterinarian during on-call hours. Many livestock keepers stated that they were concerned about how they would manage acute situations.

The shortage of veterinarians is palpable primarily for food-producing animals. To ensure the availability of veterinarians, the government has therefore taken a number of measures.

For the years 2025–2027, the Swedish Board of Agriculture receives 30 million extra per year to strengthen veterinary care. The number of places in the veterinary education program has increased significantly, from approximately 100 places when the government took office to 170 places next year. The possibility for foreign veterinarians to work in Sweden has been facilitated. The government has also commissioned an investigation into how private actors in the future can be given greater responsibility for the preparedness of animal healthcare during on-call hours. The investigator has, among other things, pointed out the possibility of introducing a preparedness compensation for private veterinarians who undertake to be on call. This proposal is currently being prepared by the government, which is expected to return to the issue shortly.

Regarding the ever-increasing costs for veterinary care, the government has tasked the Competition Authority with mapping the price transparency in the market and investigating how this affects price formation and cost development for veterinary care. The Competition Authority shall also submit proposals for concrete measures that will make it easier for consumers to compare prices. I was informed just recently that that proposal is to be presented this Friday, this week. The government is therefore actively working also on the issue of the ever-increasing veterinary costs.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by welcoming Lars to the committee and this debate on animal welfare. It is the first time we meet in the chamber, so it will be fun.

We share the view that animal welfare in Europe needs to be strengthened and catch up with Sweden, but I am probably not as concerned as the member that our strong animal welfare would be a competitive disadvantage. It is rather a competitive advantage that makes more people choose Swedish products.

The committee is also addressing a theme that we Social Democrats are monitoring particularly closely right now: Swedish veterinary care and how it has changed in recent years. What was previously a community-oriented service has today become a highly concentrated market, where the majority of clinics and animal hospitals are owned by large private equity firms. This has resulted in skyrocketing prices for veterinary care, something that hits animal owners and their animals very hard. The price for a standard veterinary visit has increased by 55 percent in just five years. It is far above inflation but also what is reasonable for an animal owner to pay.

For many, the situation has become unsustainable. Surveys show that nine out of ten animal owners are worried about their veterinary care costs. One in three even avoids seeking care because they are so afraid of what the bills will amount to. In some cases, people have also been forced to euthanize their animals or give them away because they cannot afford to keep them. This is a clear market failure, and to reverse the development, political action is required.

My question to the member, Mr. Speaker, is therefore whether the Moderates share the view that there are problems with precisely the competition in the veterinary market. If so, what concrete measures is the Moderates prepared to take beyond the assignment to the Competition Authority to review price transparency, which the member states shall be presented on Friday?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to the member for the question!

The problem with high veterinary costs is not new. The market concentration and price development continued even during the Social Democrats' eight years in power. No legislative proposals were submitted, and no concrete measures were taken during that time.

It is the current government that does so. As I mentioned in my speech, the Competition Authority has been tasked with mapping the price transparency in the market and identifying what price information the animal owners lack in order to be able to make informed choices. The investigation covers the entire country, both acute and standardized treatments.

The Competition Authority will submit a proposal this Friday. Once that proposal has arrived, we will have to take a position on which concrete measures we will proceed with. The work is ongoing.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

I would like to say that the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, came to a set table, because there was a completed investigation that then formed the basis for the government bill that we debated here during last year regarding improved conditions within animal health and healthcare. I would therefore say that we absolutely did something in a government position.

It was also we who initiated the expansion of the veterinary education at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. We started the work by increasing the number of training places, which the government is now taking forward, which is positive.

The high prices are there, and the pet owners are worried. We also have huge regional differences and differences in prices between clinics. As an example, acute pyometra in dogs can be mentioned. There can be a difference of up to 54,000 kronor between two different clinics, where venture capital-owned companies stand out with extremely high prices. It is a difference that reasonably cannot be explained by more advanced equipment, extended opening hours, or more specialized expertise among the staff.

We think it is important that we take this issue seriously. We have presented a veterinary care package with several different proposals for solutions. It concerns things that we would like to investigate further in order to take control of the alarming price development. All of that, however, has been voted down by the Moderaterna and other Tidö parties, which is regrettable.

My question therefore remains, Mr. Speaker: Do the Moderaterna rely on the market alone to solve the problems linked to higher prices and the large regional differences, or are you prepared to step in and in a clearer way steer what type of pricing should be seen as reasonable?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned in my previous contribution, there is an inquiry working on the issue. It is to present its proposals on Friday, and we will return to the concrete measures then.

I can also state that the member and I represent different political parties. We naturally have different ideological starting points. As a Moderate, I always stand up for the market economy. I know that it is the market economy that gives us growth and creates prosperity. It cannot be the state's business to determine the prices for veterinary care, just as the state should not determine the prices on, for example, food.

The system where the state determines prices has been tested in other countries. Experience tells us that it always leads to poorer quality, longer queues, and reduced accessibility. A functioning market requires competition, not price regulations.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I also would like to welcome Lars Johnsson to the committee; this is our first debate in the area of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

In my speech, I spoke about broiler chickens and fast-growing breeds and that Swedish food production does not always have the world's best animal welfare. That is what we want, and a large and good part of that is controls to ensure that animal welfare is complied with.

Unfortunately, we see that it happens far too rarely. In Sweden, we have a goal that 10 percent of animal-based agriculture shall be visited annually by the county administrative boards, which are those that have this assignment. Before the pandemic, it was around 8 percent. During the pandemic, there were not as many farm visits for obvious reasons. Since then, however, not much has happened, and in the latest figures from 2024, it was only 5.4 percent. That is only slightly more than half of the visits that are supposed to be made.

If we return to the chickens, one could see in a TV program that there had been no inspector out at these farms since 2023. The County Administrative Board said that they have conducted controls but from an office and not on-site. I therefore wonder what the member, who belongs to a government party, is doing to ensure that we get controls so that we can remove what is bad and ensure that we can have good animal welfare at the farms in agriculture.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

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

I have seen this program about chicken farming myself, and one is not impressed in all parts. That is what I want to say. As far as I, as a layman in the field, can judge, some of what is depicted in the program is not in accordance with Swedish animal welfare legislation, so there should therefore, even with current legislation, be grounds for the supervisory authorities to act.

Exactly how the county administrative boards choose to prioritize and act must be up to the county administrative boards. I believe that some of these facilities are in my constituency, and I have actually booked a visit to the animal welfare unit at the county administrative board here in Kristianstad to inquire about how they work.

I am also interested in this becoming successful. I ask to be allowed to return when I have visited there.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! That sounds commendable.

Deviations do not only exist within the poultry industry, but we have also had a noted case on Gotland with dairy cows. There, too, there had been no inspection.

If we have a goal of 10 percent farm visits and reach 5.4 percent, there must be something wrong with the management, and it is actually the government that gives the County Administrative Board the assignment of how they should work and also the funds.

Is it something we have seen from the previous government that the appropriations to the county administrative boards have been reduced. Will the government in the future prioritize the county administrative boards and give them the opportunity to carry out their mandate?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The county administrative boards are different authorities, so I assume that the figure 5.4 percent is an average based on the different county administrative boards. It can certainly differ in different parts of the country.

When it comes to resources for the supervision, my view is that the majority of the supervision is financed by supervision fees. They have no significant connection to what money is added from the government, rather the connection is which fees the county administrative boards charge for supervision.

If the county administrative boards choose to conduct supervision on-site or through follow-up of documents, it must be up to each authority to decide so that the supervision has the best effect.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome, Lars Johnsson, to the committee!

I am pleased that the member raises the wolf issue when we talk about animal welfare. The wolf also belongs there. I will return to the issue later on. It is difficult to talk about animal welfare and not raise the wolf issue. It is completely obvious.

The question I intended to raise with the member concerns the animal welfare compensation. The member pointed out that an increase in the compensation for animal welfare in Europe is the right way to go, but at the same time, the government has developed a system with animal welfare compensation. It may sound good, but the level is at a low level – one thousand per animal. At the same time, the regulatory framework is extremely complicated, for example, that one links the hoof care compensation with the grazing requirements. It will be difficult to manage. Is the member satisfied with the construction that the animal welfare fee seems to land in?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I am satisfied that an animal welfare compensation of 1,000 kronor per cow has been reached. It is a big step compared to before. Back then, the farmer received no compensation at all for the extra animal welfare work.

I am aware that the construction that exists now for paying out compensation is not the best solution. That was the opportunity that existed to introduce the solution quickly. I see a potential for improvement by developing another system in the future, but this was the opportunity that existed now to get started quickly.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! My next question concerned the veterinarians. On Friday, we will possibly receive a new proposal.

Just as has been highlighted in the debate, it works differently in the country. I just want to point out to the member that there are areas in Sweden where there is a functioning on-call system. There are functioning private systems with full competition at reasonable prices, and there are areas where it does not work.

Does the member's proposal now on Friday have a profile for the system to be changed in the whole country, or will one see opportunities with the diversity that is needed and embrace the opportunities for private initiatives where the market functions?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot anticipate the proposals that are to be presented on Friday – simply because I have no knowledge of them. But I assume that they will solve the problems in the entire country. The starting point must be that the private actors who are on call shall be paid a compensation. It cannot be reasonable that they should do the work without compensation. We must wait until Friday and see what the proposal looks like in detail.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is known for its strong animal welfare and good animal health status, and it is something that I and many others, not least here in the Swedish Parliament, value highly. It is evident in Swedish consumers' willingness to choose Swedish products in stores and at restaurants.

That is why it is equally upsetting every time we are presented with images and films showing gross violations of animal welfare legislation, most recently through Kalla fakta's investigation of a large dairy farm on Öland. Animals were subjected to mistreatment and were kept under conditions that do not meet the most basic requirements for care and attention.

We saw how animal handlers struck and jumped on cows that had no chance to get away. Those scenes still linger on my retina, and many in my vicinity have come forward and asked how something such can occur in a country like Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I have great understanding for the questions. The new, modern animal welfare act establishes that animals have an intrinsic value and that they shall be protected against unnecessary suffering. They have, according to the law, the right to behave naturally and shall be kept in a good environment that promotes their health. But for the law not to be reduced to fine words on a piece of paper, it is required that it be applied and followed up and that any deficiencies are addressed before they spiral out of control. Here, the animal welfare inspection plays an important role. Therefore, it is worrying to see that the system is failing.

According to the national animal welfare report for 2024, only 5.4 percent of the facilities with food-producing animals were inspected. The goal is that at least 10 percent should be inspected annually. It is not a small deviation, but it is a clear sign that the system lacks sufficient capacity to work preventatively.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the majority of Sweden's farmers follow the animal welfare legislation and do their absolute best to take care of their animals in the best way. That is precisely why it is crucial that those who do not behave are detected in time – for the sake of the animals, for the sake of serious farmers, and not least so that trust in Swedish food production is not eroded.

Let me be clear. I do not encourage unauthorized persons to go out onto the farms and film and take pictures. I am strongly opposed to that. It creates anxiety and stress in an already pressured industry and is absolutely not the way forward. What we need is a functioning, legally secure, efficient, and equal animal welfare inspection throughout Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! It is time for the government to act. The County Administrative Boards have for a long time warned of high workload, staff shortages, and high staff turnover. Resources are increasingly being used to handle complaints and difficult follow-up cases. It is not a failure of individual inspectors, but it is a structural problem. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the authorities have the right conditions to succeed in their mission.

Through the bill Hund under kontroll, the inspectors' responsibilities are also further expanded. Fundamentally, it is obviously important and good that dangerous dogs are detected and taken into custody in a timely manner, but in a situation where the working situation is already strained, we must also dare to speak about the consequences, namely that even less time will remain for routine inspections out on the farms and even less time for dialogue and preventive conversations. That type of inspection strengthens animal welfare in the long term and also the trust for the County Administrative Board and their inspectors.

Mr. Speaker! Good animal welfare also requires functioning veterinary care. When a cow gives birth incorrectly, when a horse gets colic, and when a hunting dog is injured during a search, there must be access to veterinarians all the way from Haparanda to Ystad.

Today, animal owners face a different reality. There is a growing shortage of veterinarians, especially during on-call hours and in rural areas. There are significantly increased prices with large regional differences, and the market has a few large actors who control an ever-increasing part of the operations. This affects animal welfare across the entire country. Therefore, it is crucial how we organize the veterinary preparedness and how we ensure that the market functions moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! The government's investigation on veterinary preparedness during on-call hours has now been presented. It is good that food-producing animals shall continue to be covered by a state responsibility. Cows, pigs, and sheep shall, of course, receive the care they need when they need it. But when it comes to pets during on-call hours, it is opened up for the state to withdraw and hand over the responsibility to private actors.

It is a risky path, to say the least. The reality looks very different depending on where in Sweden one is located. In large cities, there are alternatives. But in the countryside, there is often only one operator, or none at all during nights and weekends. The proposal could therefore have major consequences, not least for the horse industry, which contributes to a living countryside and creates jobs in large parts of the country. A colic in the middle of the night cannot wait, a foaling that goes wrong cannot be postponed, and a seriously ill horse cannot be moved long distances. Animal welfare applies to all animals, even during inconvenient working hours.

Mr. Speaker! We must also speak about the costs. The prices for veterinary care have increased sharply. In just ten years, prices have increased by almost 70 percent. The largest increase we have seen has been in the last five years, when the cost for a standard veterinary visit has increased by approximately 55 percent.

This means that more and more animal owners are delaying seeking care and more and more are worried. It has even gone so far that thousands of Swedes have ended up with the Enforcement Authority due to unpaid veterinary care bills.

Mr. Speaker! It is time that we start speaking plainly about why prices have skyrocketed. A decisive explanation is that two large venture capital companies took over large parts of the market about ten years ago. They quickly bought up a large number of clinics and several of the large animal hospitals.

It is about companies that turn over billions of kronor every year. Researchers at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences have been able to confirm that large veterinary companies with profit requirements are a major cause of the price increases. The study also shows that the private equity firms' clinics stand out with both higher prices and larger price increases than other veterinarians.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats think it is worrying that veterinary care has become so expensive in Sweden. Dagens Nyheter has reported on cases where it was even cheaper for an animal owner to book a trip to Spain to seek care for their animal there than to get the same treatment at home in Sweden. It is completely unreasonable.

Veterinary care is furthermore not just any market. It is essential for society and is crucial for animal welfare, and it plays a central role for our food production. Therefore, we need sharper tools to strengthen competition and counter overpricing.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the control activities regarding animal welfare are functioning well in Sweden. One may have views that more controls than 5 percent should be carried out. But even if we were to see a control system where we had 15 or 20 percent, I am not sure that we would hit the situations where problems arise.

The members of the board highlighted what we saw on Öland. In those cases, it happens quickly from sometimes working very well to not working at all. Often it is ill health and other nuisances that play a role.

I would rather see preventive systems. There are preventive measures, from LRF's side, to support the individual. But today there is also a super-effective self-monitoring work. The member did not raise that at all. Does the member not see it as a way forward, instead of something that we know actually is not the solution?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

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

The most important work to work preventatively, strengthen animal welfare, and ensure that the animals have it well on the farms is done by the farmer every day in the daily work. At the same time, we Social Democrats believe that it is unreasonable that 10 years pass between the times animal welfare inspectors come out to certain farms, not least those that have food-producing animals. The same applies to animal parks, where we are talking about 10–15 years between inspection visits. We have also had that discussion up in the committee previously.

I want to point out the importance of the regulatory authority and the operators meeting, that they can sit down and have a coffee and have a conversation about what development potential exists at the farm. One should not always just have to crack down on any deficiencies that need to be addressed. Therefore, it would be good if the inspectors came out more often instead of more rarely.

I fully understand that things can happen in farmers' lives, for example tragedies in the family, which can cause one to lose control and that type of matter arises. It is regrettable in all these cases. But I do not share the view that we do not need to increase the number of controls.

However, we need to talk about what the control should contain. I know that the inspectors at the county administrative boards long to be able to perform these routine controls and not always have to go out on urgent complaint cases and meet animals that are mistreated, neglected, and are doing very poorly. Sometimes it can be good for an inspector to meet a happy pig or a cow that is doing well on the pasture.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I notice that the member and I are, despite everything, fairly in agreement on the issue in the end.

But the next question is one we may not be as in agreement on: the view on the veterinarians, the veterinary capacity, and the pricing. I share the member's view that two large actors mean that we now have a complex market on the veterinary side. But there are many individual actors among the veterinarians who behave themselves and who have a sensible pricing.

Shouldn't the member be interested in stimulating the small private, individual actors to get a functioning system, as a solution?

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think that one excludes the other. I know that there are very many smaller clinics all over Sweden that do a tremendous job to ensure animal welfare and that receive companion animals and also go out to farms to meet larger livestock and treat them on-site.

We highlight the private equity firms because they stand out with both higher prices and a greater price development than the smaller clinics, as the member mentions. I also see that it becomes very difficult for the smaller actors to compete when the large private equity firms buy up more and more small clinics and even larger animal hospitals and take over the entire veterinary care market. It is that development that we Social Democrats do not want to see. We want there to be small clinics all around throughout Sweden.

I spoke with Lars Johnsson about the regional differences. When we look at how it looks between clinics and compare these venture capital-owned companies with a smaller clinic, we see that it can differ upwards by 54,000 kronor to treat an acute uterine inflammation in a dog. I mean that there is something sick in the system that makes it possible for the large venture capital-owned clinics to charge so much more in price.

Then one can talk about supply and demand and that these clinics are located in the metropolitan regions and perhaps have a larger customer base. But we must dare to take a stand when we see that type of frightening price development that hits directly against animal owners and their animals. I do not think that venture capital companies should make large profits at their expense.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating animal welfare here in the chamber. I first want to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

Sweden is a fantastic country to produce food in. We have skilled farmers, a good climate, favorable conditions for growing grain, and good livestock farming. We can produce much more food and foodstuffs in Sweden than we do today.

Yesterday, we had a debate here in the chamber about food production. At that time, I mentioned last week's large gathering, Lantbrukets dag, which I and Hushållningssällskapet organized in the First Chamber here in the Riksdag. It was clear that all parties present wanted to increase the country's food production, and that is a very important signal to all of Sweden's farmers. This signal has also reached the food companies. Today, Arla came with the great joyful news that they choose to invest 3.2 billion kronor in a new dairy in Götene. Congratulations Sweden, and congratulations Götene! It will create up to 1,000 new jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Contributing factors to why Arla chooses Sweden are, according to Arla's vice chairman Inger-Lise Sjöström and Arla's group CEO Peder Tuborgh, the political leadership and commitment. Here in Sweden, it is not as in Denmark or Holland, where they try to get rid of milk producers, they emphasize. That is exactly it. We in the Christian Democrats and the government want more dairy cows and more beef cows in Sweden. Sweden shall become self-sufficient in milk products and meat. It is pleasing that results have been achieved.

Mr. Speaker! Among the first things this government did when it took office was to appoint a competitiveness investigation with former County Governor Elisabeth Nilsson as the investigator. She presented several proposals in her investigation. She proposed virtual fences, which are now also becoming a reality – fantastic! A new government was needed for it to happen. She proposed conditional use of pharmaceuticals. She also presented proposals for fewer wolves, wild boar, and deer. It is a very important issue. My colleague spoke about how important it is that we reduce the wolf population to have better animal welfare.

But what really caused a stir was what concerned the grazing requirement. It became a very big issue in Sweden. What is it then, of what the investigator says, that is so terrible according to some critics? Well, the investigator proposes that dairy cows in loose-housing herds should be exempted from the grazing requirement. According to the investigator, it would create increased flexibility, facilitate things for many milk producers, and could give rise to new dairy farms. Existing milk production could be maintained or expanded without compromising animal welfare. With today's grazing legislation, there are major concerns with, among other things, logistics during the grazing period, challenging feeding, lack of land, and high costs for land. That is what the investigator tells in their investigation.

What is it that is so upsetting? One could ask that, Mr. Speaker. I wish that all stakeholders cared a bit more about facts than about feelings. Today's stables for dairy cows are not at all like the cramped, dark barns of the Emil i Lönneberga era. Today, they are built in a completely different way, with bright stables and ample space for the cows.

A cow that is unwell does not produce milk. Swedish dairy farmers have repeatedly shown that animal welfare and production go hand in hand. We cannot continue with a regulatory framework that many find difficult to live up to. It is about making the rules reasonable, fair, and adapted to reality. Generally speaking, we must reduce micro-management and the over-implementation of EU directives. Swedish farmers should not be burdened by stricter rules than their European colleagues. Less paperwork and more time in the barn strengthens food security.

All politicians talk about reducing the regulatory burden for the farmer. Here we can make a difference for the dairy farmers in Sweden. There should be exemptions in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden uses the least antibiotics in livestock farming of all countries in the EU. I would like to take this opportunity here in the chamber to thank all of Sweden's farmers, who do a fantastic job with their animals.

Mr. Speaker! Is agriculture an environmentally hazardous activity? Yes, that is actually what it says in the Environmental Code, which was decided here in the Riksdag on 4 June 1998. Many farmers have reacted strongly to this decision. To conduct Swedish farming with food production and animal welfare – would that be environmentally hazardous? I do not know how many debates we have had with rural ministers and environmental ministers since 2014 – no one has wanted to touch the Environmental Code.

But now, Mr. Speaker, we have a different government, which understands the importance of speaking well of Swedish agriculture and of moving from words to action and ensuring that this wording is changed in the Environmental Code. It is an important signal.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

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

Not so long ago, I debated with Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren, the member's party colleague, about a problem we have within Swedish chicken production. Unfortunately, a systematic animal cruelty is taking place in several of Sweden's chicken factories that violates our animal welfare legislation. This concerns the breeding of fast-growing chicken breeds, so-called broiler chickens. These chickens are bred to grow large in as short a time as possible. This involves great suffering both for the slaughter animals and for the parent animals.

I asked the Minister for Rural Affairs if he was prepared to do something about the problem at a national level. Unfortunately, I received the answer that he did not intend to do so.

Now, a fresh survey has been released showing that 69 percent of voters want to see a ban on so-called "turbo chickens." My question to the member is whether he can imagine getting our Minister for Rural Affairs to change his mind.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kajsa Fredholm for the question. As the member is referring to, she has spoken with the Minister. The Minister then said that this was not relevant.

I can say without a doubt that the issue is important and that it is good that we are discussing it. Something that is important here is the market. 69 percent of the Swedish people answer this way in the survey that the member mentions, but are they also prepared to pay more? That is actually much of what it is about. It is easy to say that the industry should change. I believe that the industry would do so if it knew that people would be equally eager to buy the chicken.

We must also remember another thing that I think is important in this context: We in Sweden purchase a very large amount of foreign chicken. 71.2 percent of the chicken meat we eat is imported. A full 96,000 tons are purchased from different parts of our global surroundings. I think it is interesting to include that picture, member. If we are to demand that our chicken industry changes, we must ensure that we do not trade so much from other countries. One can almost certainly say that those countries do not have such a ban. Certainly, Norway is a good example; there they have changed their minds. But we have not seen that it is Norway that is being purchased from. One purchases from other parts of Europe, and they have not done this.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the explanatory answer, but I do not agree with the member. I think that the government could change this decision. As the member mentioned, Norway has gone ahead, but that also applies to Denmark, where new rules have been introduced.

There is a report from 2024 showing that more than every fourth municipality in Sweden says that they will take advantage of the opportunity to opt out of fast-growing chickens already at the next procurement. But then the problem is that there are almost no slow-growing chickens. 99 percent of the chickens purchased today are fast-growing chickens.

If one looks at the survey I spoke about, one can see that it is a full 61 percent of the Christian Democrats' voters who want to see a ban on turbo-chickens.

My question is again: Can the member perhaps knock on the door of the Minister for Rural Affairs and talk to him so that he changes his mind?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again for the question!

I perhaps did not expect the member to change their mind. I understand that Vänsterpartiet has its position. I am grateful to receive information on how our voters think. It will be interesting to take part in that survey.

It is naturally important to have a discussion. Now the member says that 25 percent of the municipalities think that one could change it. But it is 75 percent that do not, and that is quite a lot.

We had a discussion yesterday about procurement and the problems that exist. It is something that we must become better at. It is a matter of really ensuring that the municipalities buy Swedish. Consumer power is great here. It is about the consumers, the regions, and also the municipalities.

It is a matter of telling the industry: We want to have this in a coordinated manner. We are now going to buy from Sweden, and of course, it will be a different price when one does it that way with chickens. Then they will change their minds. I am convinced of that.

But if we, or our politicians in the municipalities, say one thing here and then go away and buy cheap food from other parts of, for example, Europe or of the world, it is a great double standard. We really must discuss and address that. It is an important signal that we buy from Sweden with Swedish laws and criteria.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the member for the speech!

I mentioned the investigation on veterinary preparedness during on-call hours myself. The Government has long been aware of the increasing shortage of veterinarians, not least in rural areas and during inconvenient working hours during evenings, nights, weekends, and public holidays. Despite this, sufficient action has not been taken to ensure that animal owners have access to a veterinarian when it is needed.

Now, the investigation on veterinary preparedness proposes that the state shall no longer be responsible for emergency care regarding companion animals during on-call hours. The only thing the investigation says that one should take responsibility for is emergency euthanasia for animal welfare reasons.

It is an announcement that worries and also provokes many horse owners and dog owners across the country. In a situation where the shortage of veterinarians is already acute, the solution is therefore that the state should withdraw and hand over the responsibility to private actors in a market that already, at the present time, does not function.

The consequence risks being that animal owners in the countryside are left without veterinary care on evenings, nights, and weekends. The Christian Democrats claim to protect the countryside. But what is the countryside without functioning veterinary readiness?

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Member is whether the Christian Democrats share the investigation's assessment that the state's responsibility for veterinary care should be reduced, or if you believe that the state should continue to have a clear responsibility for the on-call service throughout Sweden.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

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

The committee member refers to an investigation that has submitted its proposal. I assume, as usual, that the matter will be prepared. The tedious answer is that the matter is prepared at the ministry after the investigation has been received, and then one sees what one concludes. That is the important thing.

The question that the member points out is incredibly important. We have a situation where in parts of our country, it is difficult to get hold of veterinarians. It is clear that it is serious. The member mentioned in their speech calf paralysis and things that can happen, and in that case, it is important that there are veterinarians.

Here, the government has added 50 million to the district veterinarians. There has been and continues to be a shortage of veterinarians. Here, money has been added so that more veterinarians can be trained. It is important.

It is not a lack of hearing from the government's side, but on the contrary. Here, one wants to change things. The Competition Authority received this assignment. The answer will come on Friday, as several of us have said here. We simply have to wait and see what they say, regarding what we previously said about prices.

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer!

Calf paralysis will not be a problem in the future. According to the investigator, the agricultural animals will still be covered by the state responsibility that the district veterinarians bear. What I raised were the companion animals, which include horses and dogs in particular.

I understand that the issue is being prepared within the Government Offices. What I was looking for was to hear what the Christian Democrats as a party think about the state responsibility for veterinary care during evenings, nights, and weekends being reduced.

Some who are very concerned about the commission's proposals are the Swedish hunting corps. Hunting dogs are also companion animals. But hunting dogs also perform searches for wildlife injured in traffic. They therefore constitute a very important function in the service of society.

Mr. Speaker! I think they deserve an answer from the Member of Parliament regarding what the Christian Democrats actually think about the proposal and whether the Christian Democrats think it is reasonable that the state should no longer take responsibility for a severely injured hunting dog that works in the service of society with search operations at traffic accidents.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the follow-up questions!

First and foremost, I want to highlight that we have invested in the veterinarians. There was a discussion here before about there being few veterinarians. There are white spots in our country. Something that the government has looked at is how one can arrange it and make it better.

Then I come to the investigation that the member refers to. Here, I do not want to step forward and say what I think. It is important that the government is given time to prepare proposals based on the investigator's proposals. It is important.

It is better for the government to have its say. That is the answer to the question. But what the member is concerned about is important. The member speaks about follow-up and other things. These are important issues. The Christian Democrats have not turned a deaf ear, but on the contrary. Here, we want to see that it becomes as good as possible for our entire country.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Taking your pet to the veterinarian is expensive, and it has become increasingly more expensive in recent years. Veterinary costs have increased across the entire country, but they differ at the same time depending on where in Sweden one lives. Prices must come down, and they must become more equal across the country.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that even families and others with lower incomes should be able to have pets without being ruined when the animal needs veterinary care. Having pets should not have to be a class issue.

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

In 2019, Sweden received a new animal welfare law. 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. We are proud of this law, and in many ways, Sweden is a pioneer within the EU with it.

All parties here agree that we need to act at the EU level for better animal welfare throughout the EU. But despite strong legislation, meat production occurs in Sweden that contravenes it.

Mr. Speaker! Before Christmas, revelations appeared in the media that millions of pigs are tortured every year during slaughter. In disgusting images, we saw how pigs suffer when they are slaughtered with carbon dioxide as a method of stunning. I do not intend to go into too many details regarding the suffering, but it is a prolonged suffocation that occurs.

This method is in conflict with our animal welfare legislation. It is both important and urgent to change this, to research more, and to use slaughter methods that reduce stress and suffering for the animals.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 8 in the committee report, which concerns measures against this.

Mr. Speaker! Today, unfortunately, a systematic animal cruelty is taking place in several of Sweden's chicken factories, which also violates our animal welfare legislation. The chicken is our most common bird. Annually, over 100 million chicks are bred for slaughter. The chicken that we buy in the grocery store is bred to grow large in a very short time. These are so-called broiler chickens, and they constitute 98 percent of all chickens bred in Sweden.

Mapping shows major deficiencies in how these animals are handled. There are problems with crushed wings and heads, problems with high mortality in transport, and problems with corrosion damage from feces and flayed skin down to the musculature.

A few weeks ago, SVT's Uppdrag granskning aired the report "Älskade kyckling" (Beloved Chicken). It is a follow-up to a report called "Kycklingens pris" (The Price of Chicken), which two years ago revealed the systematic suffering of these broiler chickens in the Swedish chicken industry.

These chickens and the parent animals, that is, the breeding animals, have pain bred into their bodies. They grow so fast that their legs cannot support them, and the parent animals are kept on a starvation diet so that they do not die from their own genetics. This results in the hideous images we saw in Uppdrag granskning.

Mr. Speaker! The ethologist Per Jensen has followed the poultry industry for many years and says this in the program: This is the most acute animal welfare problem we have in Sweden. These types of animal breeding and animal production passed the biological limits a long time ago.

It is thus a problem both with the rearing of broiler chickens and with the rearing of the breeding animals, that is, the parent animals for the slaughter chickens. The Swedish chicken industry purchases fast-growing so-called grandparents from breeding companies in the United Kingdom to continue the breeding at Swedish facilities, where the eggs from the grandparent animals are hatched to produce parent animals which in turn produce the slaughter chickens.

Breeding thus occurs in several stages, even in Sweden. In Sweden, Swedish animal welfare legislation shall apply. I quote from it: "It is forbidden to carry out breeding with such an aim that it can cause suffering for the parent animal or the offspring."

This is a systematic animal welfare problem and not isolated cases of deviations. It occurs in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.

Mr. Speaker! There is broad voter support for Sweden to legislate against the breeding of fast-growing chicken breeds. As many as 69 percent of voters want to see a ban. They simply expect a higher level of Swedish animal welfare.

In a report from 2024, it also appears that more than every fourth municipality says that they will take advantage of the opportunity to opt out of broilers already at the next procurement. But as it looks today, it will be difficult, when almost the entire chicken production consists of broilers.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: My hope is that we, all parties, can agree to put a stop to the breeding of broiler chickens and transition to a production of slower-growing breeds.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member time and again highlights the turbine cooling as a major problem. I understand this, and I am also concerned about what I see and what I hear.

I believe, however, that it is difficult to quickly reverse this. It will take time if we are to do it by making decisions. I am certain that the market, as I know it, has already reacted lightning-fast to the signals that have been received and will take measures.

At the same time, we must have a balance in the reasoning, Mr. Speaker. In a way, it is a major problem with the rapid growth. But at the same time, we must not forget that rapid growth in our chickens also makes them very climate-smart. Chicken meat is highlighted as perhaps the most climate-smart meat, and this is thanks to the rapid growth.

Mr. Speaker! What we must consider is the balance in this. Where do we cross the line? The member raises this in a wise way. But we cannot let the pendulum swing to the other side and produce something that we do not want to buy and that becomes far too expensive when one opts out of chicken meat altogether. We also need the chicken meat for Swedish self-sufficiency.

Is it the member's view that we should have a total ban on broiler chickens here and now, or how does the member want to see this transition?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Anders Karlsson, for the question!

I believe we need to make political decisions to phase this out. This has been phased out successfully in Norway, and from what I have understood, the consumer price has not increased to any significant extent. Especially when it comes to broiler chickens, a huge number of chickens also die in transport and because of the problems they have with their bodies due to them being too heavy. They reach two kilos in this short period of time.

In the program Uppdrag granskning, it was told that it was a much easier handling in Norway and not as much waste, as they said, due to dead animals. I believe that it is possible to achieve economy in this, but it is a matter of the industry taking responsibility and changing the conditions.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The poultry industry is Scandinavian, one could say. It is common large companies that make up the whole. I am convinced that the discussion that has been held in the media and that we are now having here will result in a high level of responsiveness. Here, it is also easy to make fairly rapid changes with the breeding work.

I hope that the member gives the industry time to make the transitions that it is surely prepared to make. If we make decisions here in the chamber, it will take too long in relation to the problem picture that the member himself paints.

My plea to the members is actually to go in that direction and be responsive in these areas. Then we can bring in someone from the poultry industry for a dialogue. I believe that would be absolutely excellent.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Audit Chamber's first report was two years ago. After that, action was taken in Norway. But action was not taken in Sweden, and it still has not been done.

Unfortunately, I do not believe we can wait for the market to solve the problem. I believe that political measures will be needed. They must, of course, be feasible measures. Anything else would be very unwise.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is and will continue to be a pioneer when it comes to animal welfare and high animal welfare. We must also continue to speak with a clear voice in the EU. Animal welfare must be strengthened throughout the union.

How well one takes care of their animals is a measure of the values in a society. Strong animal welfare not only provides the animals with bearable living conditions, but it also gives us healthy food and is an important piece in the fight against antibiotic resistance. It also gives us an agriculture to truly be proud of.

As we now approach the end of the parliamentary term, I can proudly state that this government has made a difference for animal welfare in Sweden. We have succeeded in something that many have spoken about for a long time but no one has previously delivered: We have ensured that there is no longer any fur industry in Sweden. The last mink farm is closed.

Mr. Speaker! If I have my facts straight, there have been fur farms in Sweden for over a hundred years. Keeping animals in a small area solely for the sake of their fur is not worthy of a modern society. Now that is over, and that is very good.

It required a determined, liberal bourgeois government to make this a reality. For me, it is a great liberal victory. It is a victory for common sense and for a better society. Above all, however, it is a victory for animal welfare. If this shows anything, it is the commitment from our side in animal health issues. It matters who governs in Sweden.

Now the next step needs to be to ensure that the fur industry is phased out in the rest of the EU. There is an important job to do here. Sweden needs to speak with a clear voice here.

To continue on the EU track: The Liberals have for decades worked for stronger animal protection for all animals on European farms. I often speak warmly of the work that MEP Marit Paulsen did in her time. There we also saw how successfully the EU can work to achieve better animal welfare. However, there is more to be done, and we Liberals will continue to fight to raise the minimum level of animal protection in the EU. We want to see stronger animal protection throughout the EU. Unfortunately, it is going very slowly. Here we need to push forward. It is time to phase out the fur industry even in the rest of the EU.

Mr. Speaker! When debating animal welfare, one cannot help but touch upon the issue of grazing. When we debated animal welfare last year here in the chamber, the question of whether or not to have grazing requirements was highly topical. It was clear that we parties in the government base held different views. That was the case. My and the Liberals' message then was that we would fight to ensure that the proposal to abolish grazing requirements would not become a reality. We were clear that we stood up for the cows' right to graze.

Now we can state that the breeding requirement remains. We are very proud of that and that the dairy farmers now receive compensation for the additional costs this entails.

That the housing of cows is regulated is important. It sets a minimum standard for how dairy cows in Sweden live their lives. It is the guarantee that they actually get to go out. It is a decency we owe the animals. More animals, not fewer, need to be allowed to go out to pasture, move freely outdoors, and have an outlet for their natural behaviors.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish animal welfare is not only important for the sake of the animals. It also gives Swedish food products a unique quality stamp, which in itself is a competitive advantage. It follows an important added value for us consumers in choosing specifically Swedish.

The ambitious Swedish animal welfare rules do indeed entail higher production costs, but it is a price that must be paid. The question is only who should bear that cost. There is no justice or reasonableness in forcing Swedish agriculture to price itself out against the competition from the continent. Now, with the compensation we provide to Swedish dairy farmers, we are leveling the playing field.

Within the government cooperation, there have been different opinions on the issue, as has been said, but now a constructive solution has been reached. That is very good. I can only thank you for good and constructive cooperation from you other parties in the government cooperation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The broiler chickens, or the fast-growing chickens, have been brought up here earlier this evening. Recently, the media have once again reported on the conditions these live under and the conditions that prevail. It is an image that is very difficult to reconcile with the image of an agriculture with a high level of commitment in animal welfare issues and with the strong hallmark and the strong brand that Swedish products have.

That we have a high level of animal welfare is a reason for us consumers to choose specifically Swedish. A huge responsibility rests here on the industry. Here, one cannot blame regulations and rigid bureaucracy. There is homework to be done here.

If one does not act, one bites one's own tail. That more public actors are now opting out of broiler chickens is an important signal: Take the criticism to heart! Act! Ensure that you follow the Swedish animal welfare legislation!

The conditions that we have seen in the media are not acceptable. Animals kept in food production, and animals in general, should live a good life. Right now, the image one gets of the Swedish chicken industry is not good enough.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report MJU9. It is about animal welfare. Animal welfare is important for the consumer, but it is just as important for the producer. That a consumer today chooses Swedish food is because they consider themselves secure with, not least, the animal welfare legislation. This can easily be eroded. We have seen some decline within the milk production on Öland recently. We have heard the discussion here in the chamber regarding broiler chickens, from several sides. Things and matters also take time to build up.

This issue with turkey chickens will leave its mark on the entire industry. But if one goes as far as to say that we should opt out of it, Mr. Speaker, one must be aware that there is a shortage of Swedish food in the trade. Chicken is very valuable as a food from a climate perspective – better than many other types of meat. I am convinced that the industry will quickly review this and return with solutions similar to the one in Norway. Anything else would be like suicide for the industry.

It is important to do things correctly. We have heard about the animal welfare compensations that are now being introduced by the government and which people are satisfied with. But it must not be done that way. "Haste" we heard someone say at Lantbrukets dag last week. The solution became too complex. To begin with, the compensation of 1,000 kronor is at too low a level. It does not cover the cost of grazing operations. It was also linked with the hoof care compensation. Talk about red tape, which is exactly what the government wants to get rid of!

To the bureaucratic red tape come changed time periods for grazing. Sweden is a long country. One must take into account what is day and night in a completely different way than what this proposal does. "Do it over and do it right" was what some farmer said on Lantbrukets dag. That is also what I say about the solution that has been reached. This actually only concerned dairy cows. But if it is to be self-evident that recruitment animals and young animals should be on pasture, it must also work for them.

There is a threat that we have seen over the last ten years in the form of the increasing problems surrounding wolves, which were addressed here earlier. If we do not handle the wolf issue in a sensible way, our farmers will not want to have their animals in grazing. It would also be devastating when it comes to animal welfare and to be able to have a discussion about animal welfare at all when one sees what an increased number of wolves causes. One can go out into a paddock and find ten lambs killed by bites. Can we then simultaneously talk about animal welfare? Have we not lost something along the way?

There will be solutions with virtual fences and other fencing solutions, but they are quite complex. We must manage the wolf population wisely. We must ensure that domestic animals are kept separate in the same way as the wolf from the Sami people's reindeer.

We must think a bit differently. We will not succeed in getting more Swedish food on the shelves if we do not handle this issue. It is noticeable especially in the areas where there have not been wolves previously. Where there are a few more wolves and culling can be carried out, it is still possible to manage the wolves. Then the wolves become afraid of shots. There are borderline cases with individual wolves. When they come out among the recruitment animals, they behave in a way that poses a greater threat. This must be handled.

I am not saying that the ambition from the government's side is wrong. It is the result that is wrong. The ambition of 170 wolves is excellent, but today we have 355 wolves. That is the problem and what creates the threat.

When it comes to animal welfare, we have also addressed the veterinary situation. It is about how we should handle the veterinarians' ability to act and that they are accessible. We have discussed this earlier this evening. I do not like that the large actors are driving up the price levels. There have been reasonable price levels in Sweden.

We must strengthen the competitiveness that is possible to strengthen for individual veterinarians and support the system that has functioned for a very long time. This applies to both livestock and companion animals. In some way, they live in symbiosis. Sometimes it is so little for a veterinarian to do that he needs both livestock and companion animals, i.e., for example horses, to earn his livelihood as a veterinarian. In many places, the on-call systems function excellently.

When it comes to what must not happen, such as outbreaks of salmonella or other complicated diseases, a state function – which may also incur costs – must step in and handle the matter in a wise manner. There are also opportunities to delegate to the private district veterinarians who exist locally. It has worked.

We look forward to what happens on Friday when the proposal is put on the table. We will see what the government has come up with. It is important to include LRF and others, even Arla, in the preventive work. I have highlighted that earlier this evening. We cannot achieve better animal welfare if we do not include those organizations. The work will not function through control alone; we must include these actors for Swedish animal welfare to function as well as it actually does today and to function well in the future.

I vote in favor of reservation 5 under point 4 on the EU's animal welfare legislation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on March 4.)

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