Response to interpellation 2023/24:818 on the legal certainty of livestock keepers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the legal certainty of animal keepers and the authorities' exercise of the animal welfare legislation. KD considers that the exercise of authority against animal keepers must be carried out correctly to maintain trust 1. KD argues that legal certainty is important in intervention decisions, but that the authorities must be able to intervene to protect animals 1. KD emphasizes that established legal principles shall be protected and that the legislation was recently updated to strengthen individuals' legal certainty 2. KD highlights that there are already many tools to make animal welfare inspections more legally secure, equitable, and effective 3. KD considers that animal welfare inspections are important to ensure rules and maintain trust 4. KD argues that the inspection authorities have a responsibility for professional treatment 4. KD considers that the absolute majority of the inspections function well 4. KD thinks it is reasonable for the authorities to intervene in cases of deficiencies, but that the assessments must be correct and proportionate 4. SD proposes a review through a mandate, a commission, or an inquiry to identify problems 5. SD also wants the county administrative boards to be tasked in their regulatory letters to systematically report how they follow the Administrative Procedure Act in order to change the exercise of authority 5.
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 Speaker! Staffan Eklöf has asked me about what initiatives for increased legal certainty for animal keepers have already been taken and what further initiatives I can consider.
The animal welfare legislation constitutes a part of the administrative law system, and its application involves an exercise of authority against individuals - animal keepers in this case. That the exercise of authority is carried out in a correct manner is important not only for the animal keeper but also for maintaining confidence in our authorities. It is clear that the animal welfare legislation and its application can evoke strong emotions both among animal keepers and among the general public.
Legal certainty is particularly important when intervention decisions are made against animal keepers. The regulatory authorities' ability to decide on, for example, the seizure of animals or animal bans implies significant restrictions on individuals' civil and legal rights, while at the same time it is of great importance that the authorities can intervene when it is necessary to protect animals that are suffering.
Depending on different situations, different decisions may be relevant and reasonable to make. Which decision or decisions depend, of course, entirely on the circumstances that prevail.
Madam Speaker! I cannot, of course, comment on which decisions are the correct ones in individual cases. It is up to the authorities that apply the legislation to make that assessment, primarily the county administrative boards and, secondarily, the general administrative courts after any appeal of the county administrative boards' decisions.
In addition to the possibility of appealing the matter to a general administrative court, there is also a possibility to turn to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, commonly known as the Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO. JO has the task of exercising supervision over authorities' application of laws and other regulations, for example, animal welfare legislation. A JO complaint can be made if someone considers themselves to have been treated incorrectly by an authority or an official at an authority. JO can then investigate whether the authority or the official is working in accordance with the laws and rules that govern their work.
I do not doubt that mistakes can be made, and it is of course deeply regrettable when they occur. That is why it is important that there is an opportunity to appeal the authorities' decisions and that the authorities' processing can be reviewed by supervisory authorities.
I can only imagine how upheaval it must be to, for example, have one's animals taken away and what sorrow one must feel if one ends up in such a situation. I am, however, convinced that the regulatory authorities do not make such intervention decisions lightly. Such measures are decided in very serious situations and with consideration of various aspects that are weighed against each other. It is about treating people with respect and not intervening unnecessarily or too forcefully. But it is also about ensuring that the animals are doing well and are not suffering. There are many different circumstances to take into account in this. Without denying that mistakes can occur, it is my opinion that current exercise of authority is generally carried out in a legally correct and well-balanced manner.
Staffan Eklöf (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the opening response.
Animal keepers in Sweden can be proud of our strict animal welfare rules and animal welfare regulations. It is obvious to us that the animals should be well-off. It is part of our culture, one could even say. But the aspect I raise is that it is equally important that the matters concerning animal welfare and animal well-being receive a legally secure treatment. If someone is convicted innocently, it is naturally a tragedy for the individual, and it reduces trust in authorities and legislation. That, in turn, has further consequences.
I have for some time now been reached by many stories with examples of questionable animal welfare measures directed at owners of both production animals and companion animals. There are examples of people who have probably, on an incorrect basis, been deprived of their animals. They have lost animals they care about and which have been their livelihood. But they have not only lost the animals, some of those who have been affected have also lost trust in authorities, courts, and that our society functions in a legally secure and fair manner.
It should be said that the examples come from a large total volume of cases, and it should also be said that the vast majority of the decisions are likely correct and that most of the inspectors, in 99 out of 100 cases, do a good job.
But for those of us who have been given the honorable task of governing and enacting laws, it is a matter of creating systems that, in a timely manner, find the few inspectors who make mistakes and ensure that they correct themselves or step down from their duties. It is about finding the unusual cases where the skilled inspectors happen to make a mistake on a Monday morning in an unclear situation.
It will also depend on us to create a system where the individual can obtain a functioning appeal and rectification, while at the same time animal welfare is not worsened. I believe it is possible to reconcile the two. There are many examples of suffering in animals precisely because of the handling, that is to say, a counterproductive situation.
I suspect that a reform, which I have not yet given a structure to but only hinted at, would be appreciated by the skilled inspectors. Then they will know that if they were to make a mistake, they would be caught by a system that corrects the whole thing.
I have seen the following problems: That suffering is not always established by a veterinarian before seizure. That the animal keeper cannot always obtain a second assessment from a veterinarian before slaughter or sale. That the cost of seizure, which the suspected animal owner pays themselves, is skyrocketing. That the person who wins a case in court and is acquitted of criminal suspicions does not always get their animals back. That seizure can occur and animal bans can be imposed based on a risk of future suffering. Sometimes these risk assessments are quite imaginative, in my opinion. That courts sometimes seem to rely blindly on those who constitute the profession. That there is sometimes outright abuse, for example, veterinary certificates signed in blank. That confidentiality seems to be used all too easily. That the anonymity of informants can be misused, and that more intrusive measures are advised than what would be needed to solve the problem.
Based on the large amount of problematic stories, I believe it is obvious that something must be done, even if it were to turn out that only half of the stories hold up to a deep investigation.
In the next speech, I intended to go into proposals, and I would like to hear the Minister's initial views.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is important that we, in a decision-making position, just as the member is pointing out, safeguard the systems that exist and develop them where we see that they are lacking. But we must not forget the established legal principles, which among other things shall ensure that all exercise of authority has legal support, that the measures are reasonable and appropriate for the purpose, that the cases are properly investigated, and that parties in a decision-making process have the right to full insight into the cases. It is those legal principles that we all must safeguard.
A decision that goes against an individual shall contain a clarifying justification regarding which legislation has been applied and clear grounds for why the decision appears as it does in the individual case.
The interpellor has made several proposals, including to specify the Animal Welfare Act, the Animal Welfare Ordinance, or the Administrative Procedure Act. These have been updated relatively recently to be modernized and become clearer and more purposeful. It is also to further strengthen the legal certainty of individuals.
The interpellor has also proposed that competence requirements should be established so that supervisory staff have an understanding of the industries they inspect. Regarding competence requirements for inspection personnel, it is regulated both in the Animal Welfare Act and in an EU regulation on official controls in the food chain that there shall be animal welfare-trained personnel in sufficient numbers for the authority to be able to fulfill its duties in a satisfactory manner. Control authorities that perform animal welfare inspections have a great responsibility to make correct assessments.
Checklists and guidelines have been developed in order to ensure that inspections are carried out in a consistent manner and that assessments become uniform throughout the country. These are helpful for the inspector and also for the livestock keeper, who can independently determine what needs to be achieved to comply with our animal welfare legislation.
Staffan Eklöf (SD)
Madam Speaker! I think that what has been done is very positive, and much has been done. But since the stories are so many and vary in character where people experience having been mistreated, I believe it is time for a holistic approach to the issues.
I must also say that I am pleased that the Minister has launched an inquiry into the simplification of rules within agriculture. I see it as natural that legal certainty issues could be included in that inquiry, and if I have understood it correctly, that is also the intention. If that is not the case, an additional directive to the investigator would make it possible.
Otherwise, we have some different proposals on what could be done. The Minister mentioned a couple of them. But to get a holistic view, perhaps one could consider appointing a commission to review how the county administrative boards and the courts handle agricultural cases, or an investigation that specifically goes through the Animal Welfare Act and proposes changes, or consider introducing an animal keeper ombudsman who can conduct supervision of the authority's work, mediate in disputes and pursue legal actions, or give the Parliamentary Ombudsman a special mandate with greater powers than today – or at least give private individuals legal aid in appeals.
Alternatively, one can introduce the competence requirement that the Minister mentioned, which, however, does not include understanding of, for example, a business – that one is knowledgeable about what is required to conduct, for example, milk production. That is lacking today, and the requirement could be supplemented with that.
Then I think that one should ensure close compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and its principle of legality, the principle of proportionality, and the requirement of objectivity by setting requirements in the regulatory letters to the County Administrative Boards for accounts of how they act to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.
It is very true that the Administrative Procedure Act was updated a few years ago, and it was done because it was not perceived in a correct way. Compliance was not sufficient. But the stories I have received point to the fact that compliance may not be sufficient even today, despite the specifications in the Administrative Procedure Act.
These provisions in the law are central. They ensure good exercise of authority. They have even been highlighted in the Animal Welfare Act in one passage. I mean that if one had followed the Administrative Procedure Act much more closely, many of the situations that I have been described to would not have arisen at all, and those that had arisen would have developed in a better way with better transparency and better dialogue. The situation would also have been better for self-correction at the county administrative boards.
Our proposal, which is a sharp proposal, is that the regulatory letters for all county administrative boards shall contain requirements for accounts on how they follow the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, including the principle of proportionality and the principle of legality. It would give the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements greater attention, spur an internal discussion both within and between the county administrative boards, clarify differences between different authorities, facilitate the dissemination of good examples, and make it easier for the Administrative Court to review the county administrative boards' exercise of authority and make it simpler for the government to obtain a good picture of which measures are required. Our proposal hits exactly those county administrative boards and exactly those case officers who do not quite measure up and not the others, who behave themselves.
Now, the county administrative boards do not fall under the minister, but the regulatory letters are indeed prepared jointly. It is also the minister's party colleague who is the minister for those matters, so one can still hope. It is a proposal worth considering, isn't it?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I and the interpellator agree that animals should be treated well, that Sweden has a strong animal welfare legislation, and that the rules we have shall, of course, be applied in a proportionate and legally secure manner.
With that said: If we see obvious problems in the future, it is clear that we shall rectify them. But we already have very many functions in place today that are to work in the direction that the interpellor writes about.
In the Animal Welfare Act, it states, among other things, that the control authorities shall facilitate for the individual to fulfill their obligations according to the law through advice and information. I assume, of course, that this is done. But the control authorities also have an obligation to take appropriate measures by reason of violations of the law, and this can, for example, be decisions on the seizure of animals. When violations have led to animal suffering or involved a concrete risk of suffering, the control authorities shall also report those violations to the police or a prosecutor.
The authorities are working continuously to develop animal welfare control in order to make it more legally secure, equitable, and efficient. Here, for example, is the council for animal welfare control, where the Swedish Board of Agriculture, the Swedish Food Agency, and the county administrative boards collaborate. Included in their objective is, among other things, equity across the country regarding assessments of deficiencies and measures taken to achieve compliance with animal welfare legislation. The authorities shall also provide rapid feedback and clear information in control and application matters, and the animal keeper shall experience a good reception in the control situation.
So there are many tools. That does not mean that one should never change anything or refine anything. That is not what I want to say, but in this context, I want to point out that there is already much in place - even if most things here in our world can be improved.
Staffan Eklöf (SD)
Madam Speaker! The fundamental question is, in fact, whether if we see that there are problems, we are prepared to take further measures and actions. But the question is whether we see the problems.
In order for us to see the problems, perhaps we have to move to active action to conduct a review, perhaps quite concretely as a mandate, a commission or an inquiry, or systematically in such a way that mandates are given to the county administrative boards in the regulatory letters as a constant process, an annual process, to report on how they follow the Administrative Procedure Act and use it as a tool to change the exercise of authority in a positive direction - for those who need it. Most people do their jobs well, after all.
Such a change of the regulatory letters to the county administrative boards, such a reform, would be positive also in other areas and for other authorities where administrative actions are carried out against individuals. It would facilitate functional solutions in many other areas such as limestone quarries, peat harvesting and wolf hunting - in all areas where there are difficult trade-offs to make and where, as an operator, one knows what the operation looks like and how one can meet the requirements in, for example, the environmental legislation or the animal welfare legislation, but in a way that works for one's own operation.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! The animal welfare inspection is important to ensure that animals are kept in accordance with applicable rules. The inspection also contributes to maintaining the public's and consumers' confidence in Swedish animal husbandry and, above all, in Swedish food production.
But the control authorities have a great responsibility, not only regarding correct assessments but also regarding professional conduct. An animal welfare inspection is a rare occurrence for the animal keeper, while it is everyday life for the inspector. It is important to remember that difference when the inspection is carried out.
There are undoubtedly cases where the inspection has gone wrong and people have become upset or felt powerless, not least when their animals have been taken from them. My view, and I perceive that we share it, is however that the absolute majority of the inspections function well, but it is cases where assessments differ that are often highlighted. I do not deny that inspections in some cases and regards can be improved, but it is not as black and white as it can sometimes sound in this debate.
I still think it is in line with the animal welfare legislation that the control authorities should intervene where there are deficiencies in the animal husbandry. But, and this is important, the assessments must be correct and proportionate.
In conclusion, I also want to thank you for this very important debate and emphasize that the government wants to safeguard the individual's legal certainty, ensure good animal protection, and promote good animal welfare.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.