Mr President, as chairman of Parliament's delegation to the Conciliation Committee, may I thank all concerned who were involved in achieving a result on this directive. I would like to thank the presidency for its work, and the European Commission and Commissioner Bolkestein in particular who acted as a facilitator. Thanks also to all my colleagues on Parliament's delegation who went through numerous tortuous meetings and lost a night's sleep in Luxembourg trying to achieve this result. Also, I must thank the rapporteur, Mr Lehne, who throughout conducted a robust defence of the European Parliament's position and his own views. The result of the delegation's considerations is before us today and we have to adopt or reject the joint text agreed in Luxembourg on 6 June. This power of rejection or acceptance is a power granted to the European Parliament under the Amsterdam Treaty. The Commission and Council have been working for 12 years to achieve rules and safeguards that are acceptable across all Member States. They achieved this only to find that the European Parliament took a different stance on a number of issues and articles. Fifteen amendments in Parliament's second reading were not acceptable to the Council. On 29 May, we reached agreement on 8 amendments, leaving three major areas of contention: defensive measures, squeeze-out and minority shareholders and the level playing field. Squeeze-out and minority shareholders have been the subject of a Commission declaration, and a group of company law experts is being set up to look at the overall situation – including the equitable price. Also, we had difficulties with the Council on employee rights to information. On all these issues, Parliament's delegation made strong representations to the Council in the negotiations and won many concessions. Indeed, from most points of view, it could and would be assumed that the negotiations were a success. However, Article 9 and Amendments Nos 20 and 17, in particular, remained a point of fundamental difference. The history is therefore important in this case. Fifteen Member States reached common accord and a common position, along with the Commission. That meant that there were two European institutions in agreement whilst the European Parliament took a different position. One Member State then withdrew from the common position – the first time this has ever happened. The Council was then in the position of being unable to concede anything to Parliament by way of negotiation on these matters. Had it done so, all 14 Member States would have felt cheated, having already conceded much to achieve a common position. For one Member State to achieve something, having withdrawn from the common position, would have caused the Council great difficulty in future negotiations. Therefore, Parliament's delegation was in a very difficult position. I say to Parliament that the delegation itself was divided on the main issue, and that is not a happy position for the chairman of a delegation. The European Parliament had already made its decision clear, and what it wanted was to achieve a directive. We had to take a decision. A vote in the delegation was necessary and that vote was achieved. We had the minimum majority required to approve the negotiation with the Council, and indeed had the support of the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. My own position as chairman was made clear and well understood. While fighting for the powers of the European Parliament, it would have been wrong for half of the delegation to have rejected this directive one late night in Luxembourg, without the full Parliament having the opportunity of the third reading we are having today. The real issue is whether managers of companies are in control or whether shareholders that own the company should decide. In other words: one man, one vote. Today we have a third reading and, tomorrow, a vote to accept or reject this proposal. I recommend that the European Parliament accept the outcome of this negotiation, otherwise we will do serious damage to Europe's future economic development. We might also do serious damage to the European Parliament, as the European press seems to be totally opposed, along with the Council and the Commission, to what we want to achieve.

Political group: PPE-DE