Mr President, I must firstly thank the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, my colleague, Mr Goebbels, and Mrs Villiers and Mrs Lulling from my Group. Despite their differing opinions on some points, they have consistently worked in an extremely constructive manner. As indicated by the rapporteur, we are discussing probably one of the most important issues that we will ever have to discuss in this Parliament. Collective investment undertakings have for some time been the primary savings vehicle through which millions of ordinary citizens, without any specialist knowledge, have invested their life savings. This is the main reason why we must proceed with liberalisation, albeit in a prudent manner. I say this because the failure of a bank is a problem for which any government can find a solution. However, the failure and suspension of payments of this type of undertaking would create a political, social and personal problem with incalculable consequences. There is also a second reason why prudence is needed in the regulation of these undertakings. I believe in a social market economy based on a successful market operating subject to certain rules intended to guarantee the general interest. Specifically, at the moment, this means the protection of investors. This basic principle of liberalisation, increased competition and greater investment opportunities, together with prudence to ensure the protection which investors deserve, has determined and inspired my Group’s position on most of the controversial points which have arisen. Firstly, there is the problem of investment in non-harmonised undertakings falling outside this directive. It is clear that by extending the proposal under discussion, the options and the range of investments in undertakings for collective investments, those undertakings which remain outside the rules will be obliged to invest in high-risk funds. It would be wrong to allow the regulated and protected undertakings to invest in other undertakings involved in such risky investments. Secondly, the problem of derivatives is one which has created the most divisions, both within my Group and between the groups. We have achieved a compromise solution. Everyone accepts that investments in derivatives must be legally limited in order to prevent a harmonised fund losing all its assets due to an investment in high-risk products. It is clear that this risk is greater when the investment is in derivatives not dealt in on a regulated market, namely the famous OTC derivatives. We have achieved an acceptable compromise solution on this, or so we believe, which I welcome. As this issue will be returning to this House at some stage, I must highlight the working method used between the Commission and this Parliament. The texts before us today are old and were already old when they reached this House. This was because they were substantially amended during the Finnish Presidency. We are therefore faced with two options. We can either return the proposals to the Commission for the latter to present a harmonised text or we can continue the current process. This second option has won the day and I am pleased about this. However, in the future I hope that the coordination between these two institutions and the Council can be improved so that our work is more understandable and more productive.

Political group: PPE-DE