Full text 
Procedure : 2008/0211(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0230/2010

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 08/09/2010 - 4
CRE 08/09/2010 - 4

Votes :

PV 08/09/2010 - 6.1
CRE 08/09/2010 - 6.1
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :


Wednesday, 8 September 2010 - Strasbourg OJ edition

6.1. Protection of animals used for scientific purposes (A7-0230/2010, Elisabeth Jeggle) (vote)

Before the vote:


  Sonia Alfano (ALDE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, under Rule 175 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, I call for this document to be referred back to committee.

We have been waiting for this directive for a great many years but, as has been stressed in several other speeches, there are some items that need to be thoroughly amended in order to ensure adequate protection for animals. Adoption of this legislation will allow for experimentation for teaching purposes and the reuse of the same animal several times, even in procedures that cause it to suffer. It will not in any way encourage alternative methods that are considered scientifically valid.

This is not a matter of adopting an extreme position, but rather of respecting Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which requires us to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals since they are sentient beings. We do not want to hold back research, but rather to encourage it along an ethically sustainable course.

It is unacceptable to say that we can adopt this directive now and amend it in the years to come. We should take responsibility for making the necessary corrections to it now. This is not a political or ideological position; it is common sense, and common sense has no political hue.


  President. – Mrs Alfano, thank you for that proposal. Do we have 40 colleagues who wish to stand in support of that proposal? Could you please stand if you are in support. I think we have 40 colleagues and I will take one speaker in favour of the motion.


  Jill Evans, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the Green/EFA Group supports the referral back because we also have serious concerns about the text as it stands. At the moment, Member States have the right to adopt stricter animal protection measures if they wish. The new law would prevent that in future. This would discourage improvements and it is against what Parliament agreed to at first reading.

We should also state absolutely clearly that alternatives should be used wherever they are possible, but the wording of the text weakens the existing law. Similarly, we need a very clear definition of the conditions for use of non-human primates. Again, this is not the case in the text.

Many problems that we have with the current legislation have resulted from differing interpretations in different Member States. We need more debate on this and on the other points to ensure that we have absolute clarity and to ensure that this legislation is effective.


  Paolo De Castro, Chair of the AGRI Committee.(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which is the relevant committee for this topic, I am against referring back the Jeggle report. After more than a year and a half of intense debate, our committee has already come out quite clearly in favour of the compromise reached on the common position, without any votes against and only a few abstentions.

I therefore see no reason for re-examining the text: we already have everything we need to vote on it today.


  Elisabeth Jeggle, rapporteur.(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am surprised by this proposal. The fellow Member was not here this morning during the debate in plenary.

I am surprised by this proposal. Mrs Evans, the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, was present during all the trialogue negotiations and supported the results of the trialogue meeting on 7 April. The Greens tabled amendments in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development which they are submitting again today. This is all legitimate and these changes are the ones under discussion. As the chair of the committee has already explained, they were rejected by all the groups with the exception of the Greens.

Ladies and gentlemen, I beg you to vote in favour of this compromise. I am not entirely satisfied with it and I am certain that no one here can be completely happy with all the points, simply because it is a compromise. Let us accept it nevertheless and reject all the calls that are now being made, otherwise we will have to live with the old directive from 1986 and with animal testing. Let us take a step towards improving animal welfare.



  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.(DE) Mr President, in order to clarify the position of my group, I would like to say once again at this point that it is often very difficult for the entire group to follow the trialogue negotiations. When you realise that the rapporteur will not accept that the number of animal experiments will increase on the basis of this regulation,


that the number of primate tests will rise, and that Member States will no longer be permitted to introduce rules which are stricter than those in this regulation, then you are entitled to propose that the regulation be referred back to committee. If that is not possible, then Parliament is not functioning properly. Thank you for your attention.

(Applause from the Verts/ALE Group)


(The proposal to refer back to committee was rejected)

After the vote:


  Mário David (PPE). – Mr President, for the last two days, we have been inundated with over 400 e-mails on this subject. Can the services do something so that we do not have to waste our time deleting them?


  President. – There is a mechanism on your Outlook which allows you to delete automatically, but that is a matter between you and your constituents.


  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – How awful it must be for your constituents to be able to contact you! You are a disgrace. Your constituents should be able to contact you. If you are asking for your constituents not to be able to contact you directly, what are you?



  President. – Ms Sinclaire, thank you for amplifying my point of view.

Legal notice - Privacy policy