Response to interpellation 2025/26:224 on animal welfare inspection in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD considers that animals are sentient individuals that should be treated with respect and that the government prioritizes animal welfare 1. 2 KD argues that the animal owner has a great personal responsibility that cannot be replaced by authorities 2. 2 KD emphasizes that the county administrative boards have the best ability to prioritize inspections and that they have improved their routines 2. 3 KD argues that differences in inspection targets are due to several factors beyond resources 3. 3 KD considers that the bill Dog under control can simplify the administration and increase efficiency 3. 3 KD argues that the animal keeper always bears the fundamental responsibility for the animals' well-being 3. 4 KD argues that the Swedish animal welfare legislation is strong 4. 5 S considers that routine inspections at an earlier stage were needed to detect minor deficiencies and support animal owners 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)
Mr. Speaker! Sofia Skönnbrink has asked me how I assess the functioning of the animal welfare supervision today, against the background that the control targets are not being met, what measures the government intends to take to ensure that enough animal welfare inspections are carried out and that an effective follow-up of identified deficiencies takes place, and whether I intend to take any initiatives to strengthen the quality, equity, and effectiveness of the animal welfare inspection across the country and, if so, which ones.
I want to start by saying that it is never acceptable for animals to be harmed or caused unnecessary suffering. Animals are living and sentient individuals who should be treated well, with respect and shown consideration.
I also want to emphasize the importance of a well-functioning animal welfare inspection. Planned and risk-based animal welfare inspections fulfill an important function in ensuring that food-producing animals are kept in accordance with current animal welfare legislation, but also for maintaining consumer confidence in Swedish animal husbandry and Swedish food production. It ultimately leads to better animal health and animal welfare, which reduces the risk of outbreaks of animal diseases and can be beneficial for Swedish food exports.
Safeguarding animal welfare is a priority for the government, and we therefore continuously monitor to what extent animal welfare inspections are carried out and function. From the government's side, we do not rule out that more tools may be needed in the toolbox in the future, and therefore it is one of the parts we consider when we continuously follow the authorities' work.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
Sweden is known for its strong animal welfare and good animal health status, and this is something that I and many with me value very highly. It is noticeable, not least among Swedish consumers, in the willingness to choose Swedish both in the store and at the restaurant.
That is why it is equally upsetting and deeply worrying every time we see images and films showing gross violations of the Swedish animal welfare legislation. Before Christmas, Kalla fakta conducted an investigation of a large dairy farm on Öland, where animals were subjected to abuse and were kept under conditions that did 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 escape the situation. Those scenes still linger on my retina, and many in my vicinity have asked me how something such can occur in a country like Sweden, where we have such strong animal welfare regulations.
That, Mr. Speaker, I have great understanding for, as it is established in the new, modern Animal Welfare Act adopted in 2018 that animals have an intrinsic value and shall be protected from unnecessary suffering. According to the law, they have the right to behave naturally, and they shall be kept and cared for in a good environment that promotes their health.
In order 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 deviations are corrected before it spirals out of control in the way we saw. Here, the animal welfare inspection plays an important role, and that is the reason why I chose to have this debate with the Minister for Rural Affairs today.
Mr. Speaker! We know that the majority of Sweden's farmers follow the animal welfare legislation and do their utmost to take care of their animals in the best possible way. Precisely because of that, 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 so that confidence in Swedish food production is not eroded.
I want to be very clear that I do not encourage unauthorized persons to sneak onto farms, film, photograph, and distribute material without first asking the operator. I strongly oppose this, and I understand that this causes great concern among our Swedish farmers and creates enormous stress in their daily work.
Mr. Speaker! Instead of having hidden cameras out on the farms, we need an animal welfare inspection that functions purposefully so that we can, in a legally secure manner, detect, prevent, and remedy deficiencies in animal husbandry. Therefore, it is worrying that the system is failing. According to the national animal welfare report for 2024, inspections were carried out on only 5.4 percent of the country's facilities with food-producing animals. The goal is that at least 10 percent shall be inspected annually.
The problem is, however, not only that the inspections are too few, but also that the supervision is not equivalent across the country. According to the same underlying data, Mr. Speaker, the proportion of inspected facilities varied between 1.9 and 11.9 percent depending on the county. In 2024, furthermore, it was only two county administrative boards in the entire country that reached the 10-percent goal. For comparison, I can mention that during the pandemic years 2020 and 2021, it was seven and five county administrative boards, respectively, that reached the goal.
Mr. Speaker! This is not a small deviation, but I would say that it is a clear sign that the control system lacks sufficient capacity to function preventatively. Therefore, I wonder what the Minister intends to do to ensure that the animal welfare inspectors are given reasonable conditions to carry out a sufficient number of routine inspections, which is one of the main tasks in the county administrative boards' animal welfare work.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by agreeing with what Sofia Skönnbrink said about the methods that many farmers are affected by, where someone illegally enters their operations and sets up cameras or whatever it may be. That is not how we should have it. We also need to have better control over this than we do today.
With this said: Those who have animals, whether it is cats, dogs, cows, sheep or pigs in production, have a huge personal responsibility. It is the animal owner or the animal keeper who guarantees good animal welfare. This will never be able to be replaced by controls or authorities – that is simply how it is.
Animal welfare rules must be followed, and deficiencies must, of course, be rectified. The regulatory authorities have tools that they can use to ensure that the regulations are complied with. How inspections should be prioritized and carried out, I believe the county administrative boards, who are out on the stable floor and meet animal keepers and inspect animal welfare, have the best ability to determine. They are also the ones who can assess which measures provide the best effect in different situations.
Performing animal welfare inspections is not a common job. The County Administrative Boards experience a clear threat in connection with animal welfare cases, but it should be added that this primarily concerns cases linked to companion animals. Several County Administrative Boards have stated that, as a result of a deteriorated working environment, they more often have two case officers go on inspections. This has the effect that the number of completed routine inspections decreases.
Another challenge for the county administrative boards is to handle the large volume of complaints received from, among others, the general public, which risk taking resources away from the planned routine control, which is what we are talking about here.
In recent years, the county administrative boards have nevertheless lived up to their goal of performing at least as many routine inspections as complaint inspections, based on an average for the entire country. The county administrative boards have changed their handling routine for complaint cases in order to free up more time and resources for, among other things, regular and risk-based animal welfare inspections. This has yielded results, and in recent years, the proportion of complaint inspections that are without remarks has decreased significantly. Today, therefore, less working time is spent on making unjustified inspection visits. That being said, it is obviously important that the 10-percent goal for the number of routine inspections of farm animals is achieved and that the authorities work towards that goal.
We know that most farmers across the country follow the animal welfare legislation, just as the interpellator said, and do their very best to ensure that the animals have it as good as possible. The livestock keepers want to produce food that lives up to the Swedish people's expectations. It is absolutely crucial for them.
Then there may be examples of farms where animal welfare is lacking for some reason. Of course, it is never acceptable for animals to suffer. But something that is important to keep in mind is that such deficiencies often are due to the fact that the animal keeper themselves, for some reason, is not doing well. That has been the case in the vast majority of cases that I have looked at more closely. Being an animal welfare inspector therefore also means that one needs to listen to and handle conversations about things that actually lie outside of animal welfare issues.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Peter Kullgren, for the answer!
Yes, threats and hatred are very widespread. I know many who work as animal welfare inspectors who have contacted me to tell me about various horrors they are forced to endure, even out on farms. It does not only concern companion animals. Even though that is the most commonly occurring, just as the minister says, it also happens that they are driven away from dairy farms and the like. This is a huge problem that one obviously must work on more closely at the agency. It takes many resources. The threat situation means that they need to go out in pairs to be able to get help if it should be needed.
I hear what the Minister says about how it is, of course, the regulatory authority, in this case the County Administrative Board, that has the primary responsibility to ensure that resources are distributed in a way that goals are achieved and that the control becomes effective and lives up to its purpose. But I mean that even if we are not to go in and micro-manage, it is the responsibility of politics to ensure that our inspectors and County Administrative Boards have reasonable conditions to succeed in their mission.
Just as the Minister is pointing out, the county administrative boards have for a very long time warned that they have a high workload, staff shortages, and very high staff turnover. They have been clear that resources are to a very large extent spent on urgent complaint cases but also difficult follow-up cases and a great deal of administration. This is not a failure of individual inspectors but a structural problem. Ultimately, I argue, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that this is addressed and improved.
Mr. Speaker! Something that I fear could create even greater displacement effects is the bill "Dogs under control," which has just been launched. In it, it is proposed that the inspectors' responsibilities should be further expanded, as they shall, among other things, be given the opportunity to carry out visits to private homes and make decisions on the immediate seizure of, for example, dogs to an ever greater extent.
Fundamentally, I think it is good that this mandate is kept distinct. I naturally think it is very important that the working methods are improved so that dangerous dogs can be taken into custody in time, before they cause damage to property, people, or other animals. But we must also dare to see the consequences, because in a situation where the working conditions for animal welfare inspectors are already very strained and many choose to quit due to threats and hate, I am worried that this will worsen the situation further – not least considering that it has recently emerged that a significant proportion of the owners of these dangerous dogs have a criminal background or are still criminals and are convicted of crimes.
We are not going to debate the bill Hund under kontroll here today, but we need to be aware that it will likely create ripples. The risk is that there will be even less time left for routine checks out on the farms and even less time for the type of control that I know very many inspectors long for and want to go out and perform. It is a meeting with the individual operator that is very important, where there is time for dialogue and guidance to find a common path forward that is good for everyone involved. It is that type of control that I believe builds trust and strengthens animal welfare.
In view of that, I would like to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs whether the government has taken into account that the new bill may result in an increased workload for the county administrative boards, and what tools, in that case, the government intends to use to meet the needs.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Swedish animal husbandry generally maintains a very high level, and the supervision functions well in most respects. Individual cases of neglect occur and are always serious, but they are just individual cases.
The County Administrative Boards have an extensive and often very demanding supervisory mandate. They must handle both planned inspections and a large number of incoming complaints, often under time pressure and with difficult trade-offs.
Some counties have, as mentioned, met the goal of controlling at least 10 percent of the control objects that have food-producing animals. But that goal is not reached when viewed as an average for the entire country.
The differences that exist between different control authorities cannot be explained solely by resources but likely depend on several different factors such as organization, management structure, agency culture, geographical conditions, competence and access to personnel, as has been mentioned.
According to the county administrative boards, the reduction in the proportion of routine checks in 2024 is due to them having a high workload, lower staffing levels, and high staff turnover.
Mr. Speaker! I am glad that Sofia Skönnbrink mentions the bill Hund under control. In the preparatory work for that bill, it is pointed out that new rules can also simplify the administration. That is the kind of reasoning that has been presented there. Furthermore, we have revised some other assignments so that one will have the opportunity to do this.
It is true that no new money has been added in this situation. But it is not being done blindly; it is being done based on the fact that there is a basis. There are assessments – qualified assessments – that this is something that one should manage due to increased efficiency, which is central in this system.
Those who look deeper into the statistics on animal welfare supervision can also note that the number of physical follow-up inspections is decreasing. I consider this positive because it is a natural consequence of the county administrative boards sometimes carrying out the follow-up in other ways, for example by requesting photo documentation of measures taken.
It is important not to shift the focus from the most fundamental. It is always the animal keeper who bears the responsibility for the animals having it well. Control is important, but it will never replace the responsibility that the one who keeps the animals has.
Sofia Skönnbrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! We share the view that it is, of course, always the animal owner who is ultimately responsible for taking care of the animals one has chosen to have.
The Minister speaks of it being individual cases of neglect. I want to say that it is a great stroke of luck that it is so rarely that we get to see such horrific documentations of neglected animals. But there are also degrees of hell – if one may say so in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag.
If one does not want to end up in what we are talking about, i.e., assault and injured and acutely ill animals, there must also be a system that detects smaller deficiencies earlier. The Minister initially mentioned that there is often something behind it, for example, a personal tragedy in a farmer's life, which makes it so that one no longer has the ability to take care of one's animals in a good way.
I mean that through routine controls at an earlier stage, one can detect this and try to support and help both the animal owner, the animal caretakers, and the others involved in the operation. The goal of the routine control is also to put out the fires before they become all too large.
We talked a little bit about clean money and that perhaps none have been allocated just when it concerns the new proposition Hund under kontroll, but the minister has also answered that he is not averse to investigating whether one could use some other tools, if it is noted that it would be needed.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is: What other tools does the Minister for Rural Affairs have in his toolbox?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The 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. The control contributes to maintaining confidence in food production, and for many people, good animal welfare is a very important issue. When serious animal welfare deficiencies are highlighted, it evokes a great sense of unease in the vast majority of sensible people.
There is a risk that the trust for other livestock keepers, who have good animal husbandry and well-being for their animals, and for the industry as a whole is negatively affected when this type of problem is discovered. At the same time, it is of course good for the animals that deficiencies, problems, and inaccuracies are noticed, so that they can actually be rectified.
That good animal welfare is maintained is, as said, primarily the responsibility of the animal keeper. I therefore want to emphasize that inspections, regardless of how many take place, cannot replace the responsibility the animal keeper has for the animals' well-being. The one who is on site every day is the one who can ensure that the animals are doing well and receive the care they need.
I also see a risk in that we sometimes in the debate – especially when it becomes a prominent media image – generalize everyone. It is far too simple to do so. Skilled, committed livestock farmers then feel that they are distrusted by definition. I want to send a signal and say: That is not the case. What is coming forward concerns deviations that we must combat, but the vast majority around in our elongated country who are farmers and have animals manage them in a very good way.
I would like to conclude by saying that the government is aware of the county administrative boards' challenges regarding the animal welfare inspections. We are looking at measures linked to these challenges, but it is nothing that I can report in detail here today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.