Response to interpellation 2025/26:248 regarding information on irregularities within the Armed Forces' canine service
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned alleged irregularities and animal cruelty within the Armed Forces' dog service. M argued that the government expects the Armed Forces to follow rules for animal health and welfare 1. M emphasized that the dogs are important for the war organization and that the authority itself is responsible for the animal husbandry 1. M pointed out that Sweden has a strong international reputation in dog service and a good system for animal protection and the work environment 2 3. M argued that the authority should work without political micro-management 2 4. S argued that the requirements for animal welfare must be high and that the responsibility of politics is to ensure that the supervision functions 5. S requested measures to ensure that the matter is handled 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Lena Johansson has asked me if I intend to act in light of the views and serious allegations regarding the use of prohibited training equipment and potential animal cruelty presented in an article in Expressen.
Let me begin by saying that the government expects the Armed Forces, as well as other authorities, organizations and individual animal owners, to follow the rules that exist regarding animal health and welfare.
Service dogs assist the Armed Forces' personnel with everything from patrolling to searching for explosives. Thus, the dogs are important for the war organization. Consequently, it is also important that the animal husbandry with breeding, rearing, and training functions as it should, which is a responsibility that lies with the Armed Forces.
To breed and train dogs within the authority, the dog service is organized in the Swedish Armed Forces' dog service unit, which also trains dog handlers and dog instructors. The conduct of the activities is under the supervision of the Inspector of Defence for Health and Environment, who is responsible for, among other things, animal welfare. The Inspector of Defence may issue internal regulations for the Swedish Armed Forces on how provisions within the area shall be followed.
It appears from the ordinance (2024:1333) with instructions for the Armed Forces that the Inspector of the Armed Forces shall report the matter to the government if serious deficiencies are identified during the Inspector of the Armed Forces' supervision or control which the authority has not corrected despite being pointed out. No such report to the government has been made regarding the Armed Forces' dog service.
Lena Johansson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
I have submitted the interpellation based on the information regarding irregularities within the Armed Forces' dog service that was reported in Expressen. The reporting covers many parts, but I intended to focus on what the minister mentioned in his answer. It is about responsibility, supervision, and actually also a bit about trust.
Service dogs are an important part of the Armed Forces' operational capability. They are used in sharp and risky situations in everything from patrolling to searching for explosive substances, just as the minister highlighted in his answer. This means that the requirements for animal welfare in training and methods must be very high, and when the media reports, the question must be asked about whether the system for supervision and follow-up functions satisfactorily.
It is not a question of casting doubt on the Armed Forces – absolutely not. On the contrary, it is about safeguarding the Armed Forces' credibility, especially in a time when Sweden is building a total defense and expectations from both personnel and the public are high. In a modern defense, there is no contradiction between operational efficiency and good animal welfare, I believe. Rather, it is the case that well-being and properly trained dogs are a prerequisite for a functioning dog service.
The Minister of Defence points out that the responsibility lies with the Armed Forces, and that is correct. But the responsibility of politics is also to ask whether that which should be detected is being detected. My question therefore remains whether the Minister of Defence intends to take any measures – not in the form of micro-management, but to ensure that the matter is being handled.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I think Lena Johansson is reasoning wisely. To review an activity is not an expression of mistrust but for commitment regarding how the activity can be further developed. I therefore have practically no problems with the interpellation itself and have respect for that part.
I hope that Lena Johansson also has respect for the delegation of tasks that work environment issues are ultimately a matter for the authority, not for politics. Then, of course, one can discuss overarching principled issues that are important.
If we start from the facts of the case: According to the information I have, there is a report to FIHM, i.e., the Inspector of Defence, and a commissioned occupational health investigation at the unit. Work is also planned regarding values and code of conduct, as well as a new instruction, at the unit. In view of this, I can state that the authority is currently reviewing the dog service itself. Without interfering in the detailed management, I can say that it sounds reasonable that this is happening. This is an activity that falls under the Air Force and under the Air Combat School at F 16.
I can also state that Swedish dog services generally have a strong international reputation. In an international comparison, we are good, which is an indication that there are strengths within this area that are important to preserve. Then, we must, of course, be very clear about the importance of strong animal welfare; that is what we expect all actors and authorities to honor and act according to. It is, of course, completely crucial and central.
I have no new announcements regarding measures that I intend to take. Should FIHM contact the department, we are of course open to having a dialogue, but I think that the authorities should be allowed to work without political micro-management, if I may put it that way.
Lena Johansson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. He actually anticipated me by answering my next question.
It feels good that the minister has inquired about the matter and that an investigation has been appointed. I have been contacted by many people, preferably from Västmanland. Many naturally become worried after such a report. I think it is important that we have a grip on the issue, even if the politics should not step in and take this responsibility. That would result in ministerial rule, as the minister said, and then one does not work if one does the right thing.
I think, as I have said, that it is good that the minister has inquired and is continuing to work on the issue. I wonder if the minister knows approximately when the investigation could be expected to be finished.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me first say that the dog service is important. We immediately entered into the answer to the interpellation, but I still want to say that this, together with the further development of many other parts, is a central part for producing strong war units. The dog service has, just as Lena Johansson pointed out, a number of central roles in the Armed Forces.
We are, as said, internationally prominent when it comes to this. We have breeding that takes place via breeding programs and which also partially supplies the Police Authority in this area. Every year, somewhere between 35 and 40 litters of ander puppies are born. They are placed with a foster host and then, after approximately one and a half years, undergo suitability tests. Every year, suitability tests are conducted on approximately 200 dogs, and approved dogs are placed within the Armed Forces and the police. This system is proven, and I dare to assert that it is successful and good.
We are now taking a number of measures. The work environment investigation is one of them. Work is also continuing on values and a code of conduct. I have no exact date for when that process will be finished, and it will also certainly be an ongoing process.
I note that the Armed Forces have welcomed Expressens review; it is written in an article in Militär Debatt. They believe that there should be transparency. As the Armed Forces themselves have expressed, they want to move from a culture of silence to a culture of accountability. It is Carl Bergqvist, who is the head of the Air Combat School, who has taken this debate.
I perceive a serious depth of intention within the Armed Forces regarding continuing the work. To the extent that errors have occurred, there is also a will and a willingness to further develop and strengthen the operations.
Lena Johansson (S)
Madam Speaker! It is difficult to debate with the Minister for Defence, as he appears in all my questions today.
If there are deficiencies regarding culture, reporting channels, or the scope of supervision, it risks becoming a serious problem as things are never formally reported. In the Minister's response, I lack a bit on how the government ensures that the supervision, beyond what the Armed Forces itself has addressed, is sufficient.
For me, it begins with the political responsibility. It is a matter of ensuring that things function on a slightly different level. For me, the question is important, and I will continue to follow it, even outside this chamber and after this interpellation debate.
We may need to take a clearer grip regarding which paths should be taken and what the supervision should look like. It is also important that there is transparency. Does the Minister see that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency and the reporting paths?
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Lena Johansson for the interpellation and for the commitment linked to issues concerning, among other things, animal welfare and employer responsibility.
In an international comparison, Sweden has strong animal welfare. It is good that we have it; it is a strength for us. In that regard, we are doing relatively well.
When it comes to the Swedish Armed Forces' activities in general, there is a set of values, a code of conduct, and what is called the Swedish Armed Forces Personnel Responsibility Board. If gross irregularities have occurred, the Swedish Armed Forces Personnel Responsibility Board, or FPAN, has the possibility to act. In that case, the head of the organizational unit shall report the person who has served. This shall include an investigation. The Swedish Armed Forces also conduct systematic environmental work. This too is strong in an international comparison; it has been evaluated.
I think that we fundamentally have a good system compared to many other countries, both when it comes to animal welfare and when it comes to work environment efforts. That is not to say that it is perfect – there can definitely be cases where the operations have not been okay. There are, however, structures in place to handle gross misconduct if such occurs.
I can, as I have said, state that the Armed Forces itself has welcomed the review, which I think is an indication that these matters are being taken seriously and that work is being done to move from a culture of silence to a culture of accountability. That promises well for the future.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.