The Green Party reacts strongly to TV4 Nyheterna’s reporting about chickens that have been harmed at Kronfågel’s hatchery.
The last inspection at the relevant hatchery was done in 2012, therefore the Green Party is now demanding that the government give the supervisory authorities more money, in order to be able to carry out checks more often.
– I think it is absolutely terrible. The images we see show that Sweden has an animal welfare law that is not implemented, says Rebecka Le Moine (MP), spokesperson for animal policy.
In recent days, TV4 Nyheterna has shown how chickens have been harmed at Kronfågel’s hatchery in Flyinge in Skåne, and also reported that the supervisory authority Länsstyrelsen made its last inspection there in 2012.
– The authorities must get more resources to be able to actually implement and ensure that these businesses comply with the law, says Rebecka Le Moine.
In the Riksdag, however, the Green Party’s description of the problem is not shared by everyone. The Center Party believes that the main thing instead is that the producers fully accept their responsibility.
– Not having been there since 2012 is very strange and a long time. But that in itself should not affect production and how we take care of our animals, but it is the production’s responsibility to ensure that the legislation is followed, says Stina Larsson (C), environmental policy spokesperson.
“Can’t currently promise more resources”
Minister of Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren (KD) has declined an interview with TV4 Nyheterna but comments in writing:
“The animal welfare control is important and the government continuously monitors how the work develops. At the moment, I can neither rule out nor promise more resources. Although control can contribute to better animal welfare, it will never be able to replace the keeper’s obligations and daily importance to the welfare of the animals.”
Kullgren (KD), on the other hand, does not want to comment on the question of whether the inspection frequency at the hatchery in Flyinge was high enough.
“I cannot comment on the work of county administrative boards in individual cases, but in general it is the case that if no complaints about an activity are received by the county administrative board, checks take place after a risk-based withdrawal. It is important that checks are carried out where there is the greatest risk of a lack of animal welfare. That is why the county administrations strive to carry out more pre-planned, risk-based animal welfare checks.”