The Commission's proposal is to ban the use of some categories of animal for scientific research and the EP agreed that the great apes - chimps, gorillas and so on shouldn't be used, but it was concerned that restricting the use of other primates could put European research into diseases like cancer, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and Alzheimer's at a disadvantage compared with US and Asian competitors.

Representatives of the Council, EP and Commission meeting on Monday reached a compromise on a number of issues, opening the way for a vote in plenary next year. We asked German Christian Democrat Elisabeth Jeggle, who is Parliament's chief negotiator, to explain more.  

Could you tell us what this legislation is about?

The directive for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes was adopted in 1986. At this time, there were fewer member states and the situation in Europe was different. We need to adapt the rules to reflect today's knowledge and expectations.

The basis is to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals for scientific tests. This legislation concerns scientific tests regarding the manufacture of medicines and research into diseases which are increasing because the population is aging: dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's and so forth.

Why are the negotiations so complicated? What is at stake?

It is a sensitive and very emotional topic. It is also an important topic: the protection of animals is something important, something consensual in our society.

On the other hand, I was fighting during the negotiations for the respect of human dignity, especially for sick and old people. It's something very important for us as Europeans. Human dignity is always a priority for us.

It was difficult to bring both points of view together, with all the emotions such a topic provokes. I have the proposals of the animal protection associations on one hand, who reject the use of non-human primates for research purposes. On the other hand I need to ensure that research can be carried out in Europe, especially research regarding human diseases. If we are too restrictive, research and industry will go to non-European countries, and there will be no impact on animal protection.

Where do we stand now?

The Commission proposal was more in favour of animal protection. The EP wanted a more balanced compromise. My task is to bring as much as possible from the EP report into the final compromise.

We closed one part of the negotiations yesterday evening. We now have to get the agreement of the political groups in the EP. I hope that they will agree. We expect a final vote in February or March.