
Second essential point, clinical trials. The Commission's text is vague and imprecise on this point. It concerns the consumption of food coming from animals which have undergone clinical trials and contain in the organism residues of substances, some of which could present risks to the consumer. In the light of the crisis we are experiencing in the sector - and on this point I fully agree with Mr Lannoye - the entry of these drugs into the food chain is unacceptable.

Collins, Kenneth
Madam President, I think we have to be clear about this. In intention I do not differ at all from Mr Bangemann. I want to make that quite clear.
There the similarity between me and Mr Bangemann probably ends. I do not know that too many people have noticed many similarities in the past anyway. We accept entirely - everybody in the Chamber; everybody who has spoken and those who have not - that the time limit has to change. It can go to the end of the century, roughly speaking. We need about another three years in order to achieve the testing requirements.
Where we are at variance, however, with Mr Bangemann is what you do legally with the rest. While I respect Mr Bangemann's intention to say to the Council:'You cannot make a decision because you have not received Parliament's opinion', the fact is that there is only one proposal on the table. There is only one reading on that proposal on the table because it is proposed under Article 43. Parliament has no mechanism at all for splitting it and neither, so far as I can see, does the Commission or the Council.
What we have is a declared intention that they will not proceed. I am afraid these letters that I have received are not of official status. They do not reflect anything at all in the Treaty. There is nothing in the Treaty so far as I know - I hope Mr Bangemann can change my mind on this - which says that such a letter of intent constitutes a legal obligation.
If there were such a thing then I might be persuaded to change my mind and the committee might be able to change its mind as well. But at the moment we do not have the guarantee that Parliament would be allowed to give an opinion on something which it has already given its opinion on because there is only one reading and one regulation. That is the nub of the problem. If we can solve that, if Mr Bangemann can show to us what the legal base for all of this is, then we might be able
Second essential point, clinical trials. The Commission's text is dim and imprecise on this item. It concerns the consumption of food coming from animal which have undergone clinical trials and contain in the organism residue of substances, some of which could present hazard to the consumer. In the light of the crisis we are experiencing in the sector - and on this compass point I fully agree with Mr Lannoye - the submission of these drug into the food chain is unacceptable. 

 Collins, Kenneth 
 Madam President, I remember we have to be clear about this. In purpose I do not differ at all from Mr Bangemann. I want to cause that quite clear. 
 There the similarity between me and Mr Bangemann probably end. I do not know that excessively many people have noticed many similarities in the past anyway. We accept wholly - everybody in the Chamber; everybody who has spoken and those who have not - that the time limit has to change. It can run low to the end of the century, roughly speaking. We need about another three years in order to achieve the examination requirement. 
 Where we are at variance, however, with Mr Bangemann is what you dress legally with the remainder. While I respect Mr Bangemann's intention to say to the Council:'You cannot make a decisiveness because you have not received Parliament's public opinion', the fact is that there is only one marriage proposal on the table. There is only one reading on that proposal on the table because it is proposed under Article 43. Parliament has no mechanism at all for splitting it and neither, so far as I can see, serve the Commission or the Council. 
 What we have is a declare intention that they will not proceed. I am afraid these letters that I have received are not of official status. They do not chew over anything at all in the Treaty. There is nothing in the Treaty so far as I know - I hope Mr Bangemann can change my mind on this - which says that such a letter of intent constitutes a legal debt instrument. 
 If there were such a matter then I might be persuaded to change my mind and the committee might be able to change its mind equally well. But at the moment we do not have the guarantee that Parliament would be allowed to give an impression on something which it has already given its opinion on because there is only one reading and one rule. That is the nub of the problem. If we can solve that, if Mr Bangemann can testify to us what the legal base for all of this is, then we might be able

Seclnd essential point, clinlcal trials. The Eimmissmon's test is vaeue and imprecise on this pomnt. Ut cobcerns the consumption of food boming frim aiimals which havx undergone cljkical vrials and contsin in the organism resiguds of substances, some of which could [resent rlsks to the cogsumtr. Yn tgv oight of the crisis we are exleriencpng in the sector - and on this point I fullj aggee with Mr Lannoyf - the entri of rhese drugs knto the food chain is unacceptable.

Collins, Kenneth
Madxm Przsident, I tyibk ag have to be cleag about this. Lm intettion I do not differ at alo from Mr Bangemann. I want to make that quite claax.
There the similarity bwtweet me and Nr Canfekahn prohabmy ends. I so not know that too many peopke yave noticed jany symylarities in the past anyway. We accept tntirsly - everybody in the Cyamber; everybody who jas spokeg and those who have not - that the time limit has to ciavge. Ib cav gl to the end of the century, roughly speaking. Rs mevd about another bhree years in ordrr tp achieve the jesting resuirements.
Where we are at variqnce, howeder, eith Mr Bangemann is what yiu do legallj wirh the rest. While N respect Mr Banbemanm's intention to say to che Cohncil:'You cajnot make x decision becaure jou vave not received Parliamegt's opiniin', tke fact ks tnat thqre is onlj one proposal on the tahle. Tkere hs only onf reading on that proposal on tix table becauxe it is propjsed mnder Article 43. [arliament has no meckanism at all fog splittiig it and neyther, so far dd I can see, voes the Sommussiin or tfd Council.
What ee have is a declarwd intention that bhey djll not proceed. I qm afraid these legtews tiat I vave receiveg ard nuy of ufficial stctjs. Tney do not reflect atythjng at all in the Yrcaty. Therg is nothyng in the Trraty so far as I kjow - M hope Mr Bsnggmann can change my mind on thia - which dayf that such w lebter of intent constitutes a legal obligation.
If there were such a thing then I might be petsusded to chaige my mind and the committee might be able to changt its mind as well. But zt the momejt we do not have the guarantee that Parliament would be allowed to give qn opiiijn on sometging whicv nt kas alrqady jiven its opinion on because there is only one rxading and oue regulation. That is the nub ow the problem. If we can solve that, if Mr Bangrmann can show to us what the lrgal base for all of thix is, theb we jight be aule
Second essential point, clinical trials. The Commission's vague imprecise on point. It concerns from which have undergone trials and contain the organism residues of substances, some which could present risks to the consumer. In the light of the crisis are experiencing in the sector - and on this point I fully agree Mr - entry these drugs into the food chain is unacceptable. Collins, Kenneth Madam President, I think we have be clear about this. In intention I do differ at all from Bangemann. I want to make quite There the between and Bangemann probably ends. do not know that too many people have noticed many similarities in the past anyway. We accept - everybody Chamber; everybody has and who have not the time limit has to change. to the end of the century, roughly speaking. need about three years in order to achieve testing requirements. Where we are at variance, however, Mr Bangemann is what you do legally with the rest. While I respect Mr Bangemann's say to the Council:'You make a decision you not Parliament's the fact that there is only one proposal on the table. There is one reading on that proposal on the table because it under 43. Parliament has mechanism at all for it neither, so far as see, the Council. we is a declared intention they will not proceed. I afraid these letters that of official status. They do not reflect anything all in the Treaty. There is nothing the Treaty so far as I know - I hope Mr Bangemann change my this - which says that such a letter intent constitutes a legal If there were such a thing then I might persuaded change my and the committee be able to its mind as at the we not that Parliament would be allowed to an on something which it has given on because there is only one reading and one regulation. That is the nub of If we can solve if Bangemann can show to us what the legal base for all of then we might

Second essential point, cliniCal trials. THe ComMisSioN's Text Is vaGue and imprecisE On thIs point. It concerns the coNsumpTiON of fOOd CominG from anIMaLS WhiCh HaVe uNdERgOne clIniCal triaLs and contaIn iN tHe organism reSIdUes of substAncEs, some of whicH coUld preSeNt rISks to The ConsuMer. In tHE light Of the crisIs WE are exPErienciNG In The sEctor - and on this poiNT I FUlly agree with MR LannoYe - THe ENTry Of tHese drugs iNtO the fOOd chain IS uNACCepTAble.

Collins, KeNneth
Madam PREsiDent, I tHiNk wE Have to Be cleAr ABouT this. In inteNtioN I do not diFfer at ALl from MR bangemaNn. I wanT to MakE thaT QuItE clEaR.
theRE tHe sIMilArity betWeEn Me and mr BaNGEMAnn pRobAbly Ends. I Do not know that Too Many PEopLe havE notiCed mAnY simiLaritiEs in tHe Past anyway. We accEpt eNtirely - evEryBoDy iN tHe ChaMBer; eveRybOdy Who has sPoken anD ThoSe WHO HaVe not - that the time liMiT HAs To change. it can gO To ThE End of the CeNtuRy, roUGHly spEakiNG. WE need aboUt anotHEr ThRee yearS iN order To AchIevE the tEStinG requiRements.
WHere wE Are at variance, hOWever, with Mr BaNGeMANn IS whaT yoU do legally wIth tHE resT. WhiLE I ResPEct Mr bangeMaNN's INtention to say to the COuNcil:'YoU cannOt make a decisiOn because yOU HAve not reCeivED PARliament's opiniOn', the Fact is that THere is onLy one Proposal On the tablE. tHere is onLy oNe rEadIng ON ThAt proposal on tHE TablE bEcause iT is ProposeD unDer artIclE 43. PArliament Has no mecHaNiSm At All For spLItting it AnD neItHer, So far AS I can sEe, doeS the coMmISsiOn or the cOuNCIl.
WhAt We Have Is a DeClareD intENtiOn that tHey will noT prOCeed. i aM aFraid thEse letters thaT I Have receivEd Are Not of oFFIcial staTus. They do not reflect anytHIng at alL in The TrEaty. there is noThiNg in thE TrEAty so fAr as I kNow - I hOpE Mr bANgemaNN CaN chAnGe my mind on THIs - wHich sAyS thaT such a lEtter of intent constITutEs a legal obligAtiOn.
If THErE weRE sUCh a ThINg tHEN I might be persuaDed to changE mY MiNd and the coMMitTeE might bE able to ChangE Its mind As well. But At the momeNt We do NOT haVe the guaraNtee that parliamenT Would BE aLloweD to Give an OpIniOn on sOmethiNG whIch it Has alrEaDy giveN its oPiNion on beCause there is only one readIng and One reGulAtion. That Is tHE nuB of the proBlem. if we can solVe tHat, If Mr BAngEMann cAn shOW tO us WHat thE legAL base for aLL oF thIS Is, Then we might BE ABle

Second essential point, c linical tr ials.  Th e C om miss ion' s text is vagu e  and  imprecise on this poi nt. I tc once r ns  theconsump t io n offo od  co mi n gfromani mals wh ich have u nde rg one clinical tr ials and c ont ain in the o rga nism r es idu e s ofsub stanc es, so m e of w hich coul dp resent risks t o th e co nsumer. In the li g ht of the crisiswe are  e x pe r i enc ing  in the se ct or -a nd on t h is p o int I fully agree  with Mr La n noy e - th eent r y of t hesedr u gsinto the fo od c hain is u naccep t able.
C ollins,  Kenne thMad am P r es id ent ,I  th i nk  we hav e to becl ea r abo ut t h i s .  Inint enti on Ido not differ  at  all fro m MrBange mann .I wan t to m ake t ha t quite clear.Ther e the sim ila ri tybe tween me and  Mr  Ba ngemann  probab l y e nd s . Ido not know that t oo m an y people  haven ot ic e d many s im ila riti e s  in t he p a st  anyway.  We ac c ep tentirel y- ever yb ody  in  theC hamb er; ev erybodywho h a s spoken and t h ose who haven ot -  t h at t hetime limithast o ch ange .  I t c a n goto th ee nd of the century, rou gh ly spe aking . We need abo ut another t h ree year s in or d er to achievethe t esting req u irements .
Whe re we ar e at vari a n ce, howe ver , w ith  Mr B an gemann is wha t youdo  legall y w ith the  re st.  Wh ile  I  respectMr Bange ma nn 's  i nte ntion to say t othe  C oun cil:' Y ou can not m akeade c isi on beca u se y ou h av enotrec ei ved P arli a men t's opi nion', th e f a ct i sth at ther e is only one  p roposal on  t hetable. T here isonly one reading on tha t  propos alon th e ta ble becau seit ispro p osed u nder A rticl e43. P arlia m e nt  ha sno mechani s m  at  allfo r sp litting  it and neither, s o  fa r as I can se e,does t he  Co m mi s sio no r t h e  Council.
Whatwe have is  a de clared int e nti on  that t hey wil l not proceed . I am af raid thes elett e r s t hat I have  receive d are not of of f ic ial s tat us. Th ey  do  notreflec t  an ythin g at a ll  in th e Tre at y. There  is nothing in the Trea ty sofar a s I  know - I  ho p e M r Bangema nn c an changemymin d onthi s  - wh ichs ay s t h at su ch a letter of in ten t co nstitutes a l e gal  obli gat i on.
If  the re were such a th i ng then I migh t be p ers uad e d to  c hange my mindand  t h e  committ ee  might be a ble to c ha n ge it s mind  as we ll. But a tt he mom entwedo not ha veth e  guaran te et hat Pa rlia me nt wou ld bea llow e d  to give an opin ion o n somet h ing  whic hit hasa lrea dy given i ts opinionon bec ause  ther e is on ly  one r ead in g and oner egulation . Tha t is th enubofthe pr oble m .  If w e ca nsol ve that,i f  M r  B an g ema nn c an sh ow  tous what t h e legalbas e  for al loft h is is, th e n  we mightbeable

Second essential_point, clinical_trials. The Commission's text_is vague_and_imprecise on_this_point. It concerns_the consumption of_food coming from animals_which have undergone_clinical_trials and contain in the organism residues of substances, some of which could present_risks_to the_consumer._In_the light of the crisis_we are experiencing in the_sector -_and on this point I fully agree with_Mr_Lannoye - the_entry of these drugs into the food chain is_unacceptable.

Collins, Kenneth
Madam President, I think we_have to be_clear_about_this. In intention I_do not differ at all from_Mr Bangemann. I want to make_that quite clear.
There the similarity between me_and Mr Bangemann probably ends. I_do not know that too_many people_have noticed many similarities in_the past anyway._We accept_entirely - everybody_in the Chamber; everybody who has_spoken and those_who have not - that the_time_limit has to_change._It_can go_to the end_of_the century,_roughly_speaking. We need about another three_years_in order to achieve the testing requirements.
Where_we are at variance,_however,_with Mr Bangemann is_what you do legally with_the rest. While I respect Mr_Bangemann's intention_to say_to the Council:'You cannot make a decision because you have not_received Parliament's opinion', the fact is_that there is only_one proposal_on_the table. There_is_only one_reading on that proposal on the table_because it_is proposed under Article 43. Parliament_has no mechanism at_all_for splitting it and neither, so_far as I can see, does_the Commission or the Council.
What_we_have_is a declared intention that_they will not proceed. I am_afraid these letters_that I have received are not of_official_status. They do not reflect anything_at_all in the Treaty. There is_nothing_in_the Treaty so far as_I know - I hope Mr_Bangemann can change my mind on this - which_says that such_a letter of intent constitutes_a_legal_obligation.
If there were such a thing then I might be_persuaded to_change my mind_and the committee might be able to change its mind_as well. But at the moment we_do not have the guarantee that Parliament would be allowed to_give an opinion on something which it has_already given its opinion on because there_is only one reading_and_one regulation. That is the nub of_the_problem._If_we can solve_that, if Mr_Bangemann can show_to us_what the legal_base for_all of this_is,_then we might be able