Dog under control

Chris Dahlqvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are going to discuss and debate an issue that is close to the hearts of many of us – not just many in this chamber but many Swedes: our four-legged friends. Dogs enrich our lives and give us joy in different ways.

With this great pleasure, however, comes also a very great responsibility: to keep our dogs under control. Having one's dog under control is not just about following the law, even if that is an important aspect. It is also about showing respect for our surroundings and ensuring that our dogs are safe and thus doing well.

Mr. Speaker! There are many advantages to having your dog under control. For the first place, safety is increased. A dog that does not obey can end up in or expose others to dangerous situations. The dangerous situations have been countless, and dog attacks, which have affected many, can lead to very serious injuries. Most worrying of all is that many children have been attacked by dogs, all too often fighting dogs, and have thus had to endure enormous suffering as a result of their injuries.

Mr. Speaker! The purpose is therefore to reduce the damage caused by dogs by giving county administrative boards and the police extended powers, including the possibility to take dogs into custody and, in cases where it is necessary, decide on euthanasia. The county administrative board can, for example, decide that an individual who clearly fails or has previously failed in their supervision and is unable to manage a dog shall be imposed with a ban on keeping animals.

In the cases where it is required, we give the county administrative boards increased powers by, among other things, giving them the opportunity to exercise supervision according to the Supervision Act, gain access to dwellings and other premises for supervision, and decide on immediate detention to a greater extent than current legislation allows.

Together with this, a possibility is also proposed for the Police Authority to decide on the euthanasia of animals that have been taken into custody according to the Animal Welfare Act.

This will collectively contribute to improved animal welfare and fewer neglected animals in Sweden. Neglected dogs can, in the long run, be a danger to the public and in particular our children.

SD takes responsibility together with the Tidöregeringen. Let us all take responsibility and ensure that our dogs are under control. SD stands behind the proposal in its entirety.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is likely that none of us have missed the reports of recent years regarding aggressive dogs and the increased number of dog attacks – in some cases with a fatal outcome, which is completely unacceptable. One should be able to go to work, school, or the store, and children should be able to be out and play without fear of attacks. As a dog owner, one should also be able to go for a walk without risking that another dog will attack.

But the problems do not stop there. Another worrying development is that dogs are being used to an ever-increasing extent to create fear and signal power. In several reviews, we have been able to see how dangerous dogs move between individuals in criminal environments, function as status symbols, and contribute to reinforcing a threat. We also know that in many cases there is a clear connection between aggressive dogs and individuals with a criminal background. This does not mean that all dogs and dog owners are a problem, but we must dare to talk about how dogs in certain contexts are used in the wrong way and what consequences that can have for safety in society. We Social Democrats have been very clear: A dog should never be able to be used as a weapon.

Mr. Speaker! A dog that bites a human can do so for several different reasons. It can feel cornered, want to defend itself or a resource, or try to create distance in a pressured situation. In some cases, it is also about characteristics that have been reinforced through breeding.

In the Animal Welfare Ordinance, it is clearly stated that it is prohibited to possess or breed dogs with an extremely high fighting drive. The problem, therefore, is not a lack of rules, but that the rules do not always work in practice. It is therefore crucial that breeding is monitored so that it is actually compatible with the animal welfare legislation and so that unscrupulous breeders are detected and subject to prohibitions.

Mr. Speaker! Another important part in preventing dog attacks is that aggressive dogs with an extremely high fighting drive are taken into custody in time. It is against that background that we are debating the report Dog under control here tonight. We Social Democrats share the government's view that the supervision needs to function better and that the division of responsibility between the police and the County Administrative Board needs to be clarified. We also see a need for more powerful tools to be able to act promptly in cases where dogs cause or risk causing harm.

Therefore, we support the proposals in the bill. These are reasonable changes that we believe can contribute to more efficient supervision, faster decisions, reduced animal suffering, and greater safety for people.

But stricter legislation is not always enough. We must also ensure that the authorities responsible for supervision are given reasonable conditions to succeed in their mission.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have therefore, in our special statement, chosen to highlight the importance of carefully monitoring how the changes affect the work of the county administrative boards and the working environment of the animal welfare inspectors.

We know that supervisory work often involves a high workload and many vulnerable situations, where threats, hate, and pressure against employees occur.

With this proposal, the powers of animal welfare inspectors are also expanded so that they can also carry out home visits to dog owners, which can involve significant risks. This applies in particular because we see a clear connection between aggressive dogs and crime.

Therefore, we want to particularly emphasize the importance of the Police Authority providing assistance in the event of a risk of conflict in order to maintain a safe and secure working environment for the animal welfare inspectors.

Mr. Speaker! In today's debate, we are also addressing the issue of smuggling of dogs. I believe that many of us in here share the view that the dog is man's best friend and not some smuggled goods. Many probably get a lump in their stomach when they see pictures of dirty, skinny puppies in cramped cages that have been stopped at the border.

Despite this, the illegal trade in dogs generates large sums of money every year and is in many cases linked to organized crime. Buying a smuggled dog therefore risks not only contributing to animal suffering but also to other serious crime.

Therefore, it is important that the person who plans to buy a dog conducts thorough research and properly checks the breeder. One should find out where the dog comes from, request to meet the puppy together with the bitch, and ensure that the documentation is correct.

At the same time, we must be aware that it has become more difficult for future dog owners to determine what is serious and what is not, because the smugglers are using increasingly sophisticated methods.

Puppies are sold in organized premises and advertised on websites with formulations such as microchipped, vaccinated, and raised in a home environment. This gives an appearance of safety, even though the dog may in fact be smuggled.

Mr. Speaker! That this type of activity has become harder to detect can have major consequences. In addition to the fact that the dogs risk bringing diseases into Sweden, such as rabies, the smuggling also involves systematic animal cruelty.

It is about cramped transport, long journeys, lack of food and water, and dogs being bred time and again in so-called puppy factories. This type of handling also increases the risk of behavioral disorders, which in the long run can also have consequences for people's safety.

Mr. Speaker! The illegal breeding of dogs and smuggling has become an important source of income for criminal networks. We are talking about millions of kronor that go straight into their pockets.

We certainly cannot turn a blind eye to this. We must create order and clarity in the dog market so that people can feel safe when they buy a pet.

We Social Democrats have, among other things, proposed that veterinarians should be able to raise the alarm as early as at suspicion of smuggling, that the relevant authorities should be able to share information with each other in a simpler way, that the supervision of dog breeding be strengthened and that the penalties be toughened.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I would like to conclude by moving for the adoption of reservation 4 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are an estimated more than one million dogs. The large number reflects the dog's popularity as a companion animal, hunting companion, or work partner, or a combination of these.

The vast majority of dogs are well cared for. Unfortunately, it does happen that authorities must intervene because dogs are harmed. It is also relatively common that aggressive so-called fighting dogs injure people or other dogs. Unfortunately, it is a trend that is increasing.

that dogs behave aggressively can often be traced back to the owner. The dog has been trained incorrectly, it has been neglected, one has bred for aggressive traits, or the owner lacks sufficient knowledge to take care of their dog.

The government has therefore conducted a review of the regulatory framework regarding the supervision and handling of dogs. That is what today's bill is about.

When a dog behaves aggressively towards people or other dogs, or when animals are harmed, it is important that the authorities can intervene and that they have sufficiently good support in the law to be able to act resolutely.

The Government has identified some deficiencies in the laws on the supervision of dogs and cats, the so-called supervision law. It therefore proposes that the Riksdag decides on, among other things, the following changes to this law.

The County Administrative Board shall be granted the right to immediately seize a dog found in the possession of someone who has a dog ban. Today, there is a lack of legal basis for this according to the supervision act.

The County Administrative Board shall also have the right to be granted access to areas and various types of premises related to dog ownership in order to inspect dogs and conduct investigations, or to verify that a dog ban is being followed.

The County Administrative Board shall have the right to access documents from the person who is subject to supervision. The person in question shall also be obliged to provide the information that the County Administrative Board needs for its supervision.

The County Administrative Board shall be given the right to issue orders according to the supervision act and to combine them with a fine.

Finally, the County Administrative Board shall be able to request assistance from the police to enforce decisions and exercise its supervision.

Regarding changes to the Animal Welfare Act, the government proposes that both the police and the County Administrative Board shall be granted the right to immediately decide to take into custody animals kept in violation of animal prohibitions. Today, only the police have that possibility.

The proposed legislative changes give the authorities an increased mandate to act when someone, for example, keeps fighting dogs that pose a danger to people or other dogs.

They also give the authorities increased opportunities to act when animals suffer because animal owners fail in their animal husbandry.

These are welcome changes that we Moderates stand behind. The authorities must exist to help and alleviate suffering when people are unable to manage their animal ownership.

Hopefully, with these legislative changes, we can help vulnerable animals that otherwise would not have received help.

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

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report Hund under kontroll. The government's bill implies, among other things, the possibility for the County Administrative Board to exercise supervision according to the Supervision Act, gain access to dwellings and other premises for the supervision, and decide on immediate seizures to a greater extent.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to remember that the issue of dogs causing damage is multifaceted and needs to be considered from different perspectives simultaneously. We agree with the Swedish Kennel Club, which argues that it is primarily two groups that need to be addressed. One is the unsuitable dog owners. The other is the unsuitable dog breeders.

Mr. Speaker! It is good that the county administrative boards now receive better powers to act in matters. But we do not agree that the proposals do not involve cost increases for the county administrative boards. We receive agreement on this from a number of referral bodies.

The County Administrative Boards are already heavily burdened and often do not have sufficient resources to carry out the necessary controls that they need to perform according to the Animal Welfare Act.

Therefore, I move for approval of reservation number 1, which concerns the fact that the government must ensure sufficient resources for the county administrative boards to be able to implement what is proposed in the legislation.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposed decision.

Today we are speaking about the report Dog under control. Owning a dog is for many a great source of joy, security, and companionship. The vast majority of dog owners manage their dogs exemplarily, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

More and more frequently, incidents are reported where dogs cause injuries to both people and other animals. Dogs run loose in parks, on playgrounds, or in residential areas without supervision. The incidents can be very serious, with dogs scaring or, in the worst cases, attacking with devastating results.

Even the kindest dog can react unpredictably in a stressful situation. That is why it is crucial that owners have full control over their animals, regardless of the environment.

Mr. Speaker! The bill means that the responsibility for the dog owner is tightened. Those who cannot control their dog should not have a dog either. It also means that the dog owner is responsible for damages the dog causes, regardless of whether the owner is negligent or not. The proposal is not about unnecessarily restricting dog owners but about creating a safer coexistence.

Mr. Speaker! The bill also entails greater powers for various authorities. The County Administrative Board, for example, will receive more power to monitor dog owners and intervene and the possibility to enter residences for supervision. It will also become easier to decide on the immediate seizure of dogs. The police can also, in certain cases, decide on the euthanasia of seized animals.

Mr. Speaker! A major and serious concern is the large-scale smuggling of dogs into Sweden. It concerns dogs that are bred in a terrible manner, and because there is a lot of money in this trade, it feeds criminal gangs enormously. Smuggled dogs also risk introducing serious diseases, for example, rabies. Some measures have been taken to prevent dog smuggling, but more must be done.

Mr. Speaker! The Government therefore appointed, during the autumn of 2025, an inquiry with the mandate to analyze and submit proposals for measures against the illegal import of companion animals. The investigator shall review the need for and the prerequisites for introducing an obligation for veterinarians to report suspicion of illegal import of animals. The mandate also includes analyzing the need for legislative changes that ensure that Tullverket has the powers required for an effective control of the import of animals from other EU countries. Finally, the investigator shall consider whether there are other measures that can improve the possibilities for the relevant authorities to prevent organized smuggling of companion animals.

This investigation is very important. Many of us look forward to it being completed on March 31st this year.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, we have seen several serious dog attacks. One that I remember particularly well occurred in a neighboring village in Robertsfors municipality.

This woman had a so-called fighting dog. It had bitten grandchildren and nipped at others and was truly unstable. The woman told the animal welfare unit at the County Administrative Board that the dog was in Norway and that it was not in her possession, even though it was. Since the County Administrative Board's animal welfare unit is often quite heavily burdened with supervisory work, no one came to see how things stood with this matter. Unfortunately, it ended with the dog ensuring that the woman lost her life.

This is just one of many serious dog attacks, as I mentioned at the beginning. These incidents create anxiety and fear. Some may not lead to the worst, such as death, but to severe injuries. This is not an abstract issue. It is about people's safety in everyday life and about the protection of other animals. The Center Party therefore welcomes that the government is now taking action.

Mr. Speaker! In the debate we often hear, just as Magnus Oscarsson pointed out, demands to ban certain dog breeds. It may sound decisive, but it is the wrong path to take. The problem does not lie in the breed, but the problem lies in the behavior and in the owner's responsibility.

We have not decided on a race ban here, but it has nevertheless been raised in various debates. I also know that it has been introduced in some other countries. But it is a blunt measure, because a race ban is easy to circumvent through mixed-race breeding. What is perhaps even worse is that it risks creating a false sense of security where we believe the problems are solved when they are not.

If we are to truly tackle the problems, we must dare to focus on what actually makes a difference: that the right dogs are stopped in time and that irresponsible owners are held accountable.

Important steps in the right direction are taken in and by means of the bill. By giving the county administrative boards and the police sharper tools and better opportunities for supervision, access, and actually also immediate detentions for this type of case, the focus is shifted from race to responsibility and from labels to behavior. It is a more accurate policy, and therefore Centerpartiet stands behind the direction of the bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a decisive problem that we must not turn a blind eye to. Several referral bodies, not least the county administrative boards themselves, warn of the consequences. The county administrative boards must now take greater responsibility, and they must take over costs, but they do not necessarily get more resources.

Already today, many county administrative boards are struggling to keep up with their mandate, and the goals for animal welfare inspections are not fully met because resources are too strained. What happens then when the mandate grows but the funding does not? Well, then one is forced to prioritize. It is here that the risk becomes clear, for what will then be prioritized away? It would be unfortunate if the work to prevent dog attacks were to lead to a deterioration of animal welfare for other animals. We cannot strengthen one part by weakening another.

Mr. Speaker! If the bill is to be good, it is required that the government takes responsibility all the way, and I hope that one might perhaps listen to that ear in the end. It is not enough with new powers, but it also requires the right conditions.

The message is – as you understand because I have repeated it several times – that when the county administrative boards' responsibilities increase, the resources must follow.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of the bill so that I have done so.

Yes, having a dog is fantastic! It is true quality of life for very many people. The vast majority of dog owners really take good care of their animals in a good way. But at the same time, there are owners who actually do not do that and who cannot handle the great responsibility. There are also individual dogs that are problematic.

We are now presenting proposals that mean that something can be done about dogs that are problematic, and we are also ensuring that the County Administrative Board and the police are given extended powers.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think the direction that is now available for consideration is positive. However, there are a few things that we from Miljöpartiet would have liked to see even more clearly.

Already, it states in the Animal Welfare Act that one should not breed for extreme fighting lust. What this falls on, as it often does when it comes to animals, is the implementation. Therefore, it is very good that the county administrative boards now get a better opportunity to carry out controls and follow up, simply implement, instructions in the Animal Welfare Act.

What we would have liked to see is that resources surrounding this had also been secured. The more tasks that are placed on the county administrative boards' tables, the more difficult it becomes for them. It becomes a matter of prioritization, and there animal issues often risk ending up far down. It would therefore have been very good if resources could also have been added here.

Regarding measures such as relocation, we in Miljöpartiet think it would have been good if it could have been clarified that persons who themselves have animal and dog bans are not allowed to be involved in relocating the animals or to do it themselves.

Regarding provisions and decisions on euthanasia, we would like to consider it as the absolute last resort. There, we mean that one could have clarified what is meant by "other special reasons" as a basis for euthanasia and detention.

I therefore move for the approval of reservation 3.

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

Sara-Lena Bjälkö (-)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are addressing the bill Dog under control – an important matter, not only for the safety in our societies but also for the view on responsibility, community, and respect for both people and animals.

I begin, Mr. Speaker, by moving to approve the submitted proposal.

For many people, the dog is a natural part of the family. It provides companionship, security, and joy. Throughout our country, there are committed and responsible dog owners who every day show care for their animals and consideration for their surroundings.

It is important to start there, Mr. Speaker. The vast majority of dog owners in Sweden do indeed fulfill their responsibility. They train their dogs, keep them on leashes where necessary, and ensure that they do not pose a danger to others. However, it only takes a few who do not take their responsibility for the consequences to become very serious.

The proposition contains important steps to strengthen the control over dogs that pose a risk. This includes, among other things, clearer opportunities to intervene against dangerous dogs and their owners.

When a dog goes on attack, people are hit. Children can be injured, and other animals can be injured and killed. The safety in our residential areas and parks is eroded.

We have also seen how dogs in some cases are used as a threat or a means of power in criminal environments. It is a development, Mr. Speaker, that we must take most seriously.

Previously, the supervision of dog ownership has been fragmented and in some parts unclear, with limited possibilities for the county administrative boards to act effectively. With the government's proposal, the responsibility is clarified while the county administrative boards receive better tools, such as the right of access and the right to request information, which enables faster and more powerful interventions to increase safety in society.

As Christian Democrats, we start from a fundamental principle: Freedom presupposes responsibility. The freedom to own a dog must always go hand in hand with the responsibility to keep the dog under control. It is therefore reasonable that society has tools to act when dog ownership is deficient. Authorities must be able to intervene when there is a risk of people or animals being harmed. Those who repeatedly neglect their responsibility shall also face clear consequences.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is just as important that the legislation is accurate and proportionate. We shall direct the measures towards the problems, not towards all the dog owners who do the right thing. It would be both unfair and inefficient to place additional burdens on people who already take their responsibility.

The Christian Democratic starting point is simple: Society shall be both safe and reasonable. Children shall be able to play in parks without fear. The elderly shall be able to walk without feeling anxiety when they encounter a dog. Yes, regardless of age, Mr. Speaker, one shall be able to encounter a dog and feel safe. At the same time, serious dog owners shall be able to continue living an active life with their animals without being met with suspicion or unnecessary regulation.

The view on animals also says something about the view on responsibility in a society. That a dog is trained to aggression or is kept by someone who lacks the ability to take responsibility is not just a problem, it is also an animal welfare problem. Keeping a dog, therefore, is not just about control. It is about responsibility, respect, and good judgment.

Mr. Speaker! When these values are in place, the interaction between people, animals, and society functions well. When they are missing, society must be able to act. A good society is built on trust, responsibility, and community.

We Christian Democrats want a society where people feel security in everyday life, where animals are treated well and where responsibility is encouraged, not eroded. By ensuring that dogs are kept under control, we contribute to exactly this: a safer, more cohesive Sweden.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 March.)

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