Response to interpellation 2022/23:71 on the Swedish animal welfare inspection
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the Swedish animal welfare inspection and the risk of diminished trust in food production in the event of deficiencies. KD argues that the animal welfare legislation is strong and that it is a failure when animals suffer 1. KD believes that the government should not take specific measures to direct the county administrative boards' inspection work but should instead trust the authorities 1 2 3. KD emphasizes that most farmers manage animal husbandry well and that deficiencies often stem from personal crises 2. S argues that the number of planned routine inspections is decreasing because acute complaint cases take up too much time 4. S wants the government to ensure that the county administrative boards receive sufficient resources to reach the goal of 10 percent of farms inspected annually.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam President! Sofia Skönnbrink has asked me how I view the risk that confidence in Swedish animal husbandry and food production decreases if animal welfare inspections do not function in a purposeful way and whether I plan to take any measures to increase the number of regular, risk-based animal welfare inspections and, if so, which ones.
First, I want to state that it is a failure when animals are subjected to suffering. Animals are sentient and living beings and should be cared for and kept in such a way that their welfare is promoted.
Swedish animal welfare legislation is strong and aims not only to ensure good animal protection but also to promote good animal welfare and respect for animals.
For many people, good animal welfare is a very important issue. When serious animal welfare deficiencies are highlighted, it evokes strong emotions. There is a risk that trust for other animal keepers, who have good animal husbandry and well-being animals, and for the industry as a whole is negatively affected when animal welfare problems are discovered. At the same time, of course, it is good for the animals that deficiencies, problems, and inaccuracies are discovered so that they can be rectified.
I do not share Sofia Skönnbrink's view that the animal welfare inspections do not function in a purposeful way. The Government continuously monitors how the animal welfare inspections are carried out and function. The County Administrative Boards have clear goals as well as methods and indicators to monitor and steer their animal welfare inspection work. I see no reason to take special measures to steer how the County Administrative Boards plan and carry out the different types of inspection measures that they use. All measures that the County Administrative Boards use aim to ensure that the animals are well.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Madam Speaker! Strong animal welfare and good animal well-being are something that I and many with me value highly. That our animals are treated well is an ethical responsibility that we all carry. Therefore, it hurts extra when we, as happened last month, get to see photos and video clips of tortured animals from a Swedish chicken farm. The Minister stated in connection with the revelation that he got a lump in his stomach, and I myself would say that it is completely unacceptable.
Madam Speaker! The new, modern animal welfare act introduced by the previous S-led government establishes that animals have the right to behave naturally and that they shall be kept and cared for in such a way that their welfare is promoted.
We know that most farmers across the country follow the animal welfare legislation and do their very best to ensure that the animals have it as good as possible and produce milk and meat that live up to the Swedish people's expectations.
At the same time, it is important to ensure that those who do not behave properly are detected in time, so that their animals do not have to endure neglect and, in the worst case, direct suffering. This is important not only for the animals' best but also for the best of serious farmers. Otherwise, there is a risk that confidence in Swedish food production will be eroded, which in the long run can also reduce the added value that Swedish products are known for and that we are so proud of.
One of the most important tools for detecting and addressing deficient animal husbandry is the county administrative boards' animal welfare inspections. Without a functioning inspection activity, we cannot guarantee compliance with the animal welfare legislation. The inspection that we need to see more of is the planned, risk-based, and regular so-called normal inspection, which is actually identified as the main mission for the Swedish animal welfare inspection activity. Therefore, I think it is worrying to see that the number of normal inspections is decreasing.
Madam Speaker! The goal is that at least 10 percent of the control objects that have food-producing animals shall be controlled every year. It is a goal that has not been met for a very long time. The pandemic and its impact on physical controls are stated to be part of the explanation for the lack of goal fulfillment in recent years. But this development, where acute complaint cases take more and more time from the planned control, we have seen clearly already long before the pandemic.
In his response, the Minister suggests that I do not have confidence in the Swedish Animal Welfare Inspection and how the County Administrative Board structures its work. I wish to deny that and say that it is not true. On the other hand, I see a very large risk that more and more time that should actually be spent on planned and risk-based inspections must instead be used for urgent complaint cases.
That is why I still wonder what the Minister for Rural Affairs intends to do concretely to ensure that the number of regular and risk-based animal welfare inspections increases.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! The interpellor is on the point that the vast majority of farmers who keep animals in Sweden do so in an extraordinarily good way. They are proud of their animals, and they treat them very well. They do it because they know that in their enterprise, there is also something extraordinarily positive with healthy animals and with good animal welfare. They produce better regardless of whether it is a question of milk, meat, or something else. Then one gets a higher value in one's enterprise. Furthermore, one reduces the use of antibiotics, and one reduces the risk of large disease outbreaks in herds and so on.
I believe that the best we can do is to have trust in the regulatory authorities that we have. I have noted that they have not reached the established goals regarding how many planned inspections they are supposed to carry out. The interpellator mentioned some of the reasons for that themselves. But I do not believe it is expedient for the government to step in and manage even more.
We have a good and well-developed animal welfare work, and the inspections are carried out. It is clear that one may want more. But the various inspection authorities also point out which problems they have had and also have different thoughts on how the increased amount of direct complaints and reports that come in should be handled – whether it is possible to streamline the inspections regarding them and dismiss them so that they can avoid making physical visits.
Those who know this best are those who are out on the farm. They are the ones who see straight into the barn and have the best grasp of how to do this.
I must also say that it is extremely positive for the animals involved when deficiencies are highlighted. But one must also sometimes see behind the reports what might be happening – no specific individual pointed out. But many times when one, as I have done, meets farmers, it is often the case that they have suffered a personal life crisis in some way. It can be illness or other tragedies in the family that cause them to fall behind. It can be finances and other things. There is something behind it. And I genuinely believe that there are few who live by producing food for us who in any way intentionally want poor animal welfare.
At the ministers of agriculture's council meeting recently, increased animal welfare across Europe was discussed. I can see a certain concern regarding how the situation in the world now makes some European countries try to use it as a way so that we do not proceed with stricter animal welfare at the European level. We want more to follow our example. We want more animals to have the animal welfare that we have in Sweden. It is important. This we have argued for, and we have spoken with pride about what animal welfare we have in Sweden.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Madam President! It is interesting to hear that we share the same view, namely that strong animal welfare is important. Both the Minister for Rural Affairs and I know that the vast majority, as I said, are very careful with their animal husbandry and do everything they can to ensure that their animals feel as good as possible.
However, I think the Minister for Rural Affairs makes it sound as if my intention with this is that the politics should micro-manage the control authority and its practitioners, i.e., the inspectors. That is not at all what I mean. However, I believe we have slightly different views on how important the planned routine control is, which is risk-based and provides a natural meeting with our farmers. I am convinced that if a reduced number of planned controls occur, it does not only increase the risk that mismanagement is not detected in time, as I said. I also believe that it risks reducing the trust for the control authority, which in this case is the County Administrative Board.
If the minister himself were a dairy farmer, I do not think he would appreciate it if the regulatory authority only showed up when complaints had been received regarding his animal husbandry, only to tell him that the animals are dirty or too thin, or that the minister has failed in his responsibility as an animal keeper and has not managed his work in the correct way. Then one can ask what kind of image that gives of the control activities. If the minister asks me, I think it will result in the authority making an effort to visit our farmers only when there is a chance to find faults.
Madam President! This is, to say the least, harmful for the contact between inspectors and animal owners and fuels the contempt for authority that already exists to an all too high degree. Through the planned inspections, as I said initially, animal owners and inspectors can meet in a completely different way. It provides opportunities to work preventatively and not just be out putting out fires.
Therefore, I wonder how the Minister views this and whether he does not think it is an important aspect of the issue.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I do not assume that the interpellator has any other intention than the one she has expressed. I believe we are in agreement on this issue. It is not intended to be conflictual, if it sounds that way.
These questions do not need political conflict. I can state with pride that Sweden has good animal welfare. We shall have a control activity, and we share the ambition that it is important that controls occur when deficiencies are seen and someone reports a suspected mistreatment. The County Administrative Boards have also looked into whether there is a national routine for how a good portion of these issues should be handled so that it should go faster and so on. But I have no other ambition than the one pointed out, that the planned controls should also be carried out. Just as the interpellor is touching upon, I also believe that it is important for the trust between farmers, agricultural producers, animal keepers and authorities. I see no conflict in that.
Since it is clear that it is easy for us from a political standpoint to want to step in and micro-manage. But I believe more in trust-based leadership regarding these agencies and these rather detailed controls that are carried out. And those who are best at performing this should also be allowed to set up the work in the way they want to do it.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Madam President! Since we are in such agreement, there is not so much more to add, and it is just nice to know that it looks that way.
However, I think it is still important that we take these signs seriously, and I think the Minister has agreed with me on that. One sees this and has no other intention than that we should fulfill the goal that has been set, which is that at least 10 percent of the farms that have food-producing animals shall undergo a control every year.
I believe, however, that it is also important that we see the background to why this problem has arisen. If one looks at the national animal welfare report for the year 2021, one sees that many county administrative boards point out that the reason they are unable to live up to the goal for the planned inspections is that the acute complaint cases take far too much time and that there are not enough resources for the county administrative boards to fulfill their mission.
There, I think it is important that the government acts and ensures that the county administrative boards have sufficient resources and the right tools to fulfill their mandate, so that animal welfare in Sweden is not at risk of being negatively affected.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam President! In summary, as has been said, it is the animal keeper's responsibility to ensure that the animals are well-kept and doing well. Deficiencies must always be rectified, and it is never acceptable to subject animals to suffering.
A well-functioning animal welfare control is important to catch the cases where animal keepers fail in their responsibility. The control also contributes to maintaining confidence in the entire Swedish food production. The authorities have several different tools that can be used to ensure that animal welfare regulations are complied with, and the government's management of the authorities shall be long-term, strategic, operationally adapted, and based on a holistic perspective, with trust and confidence as the foundation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.