Madam President, I would like first to speak on the transparency directive on behalf of the Group, which supports this package from the presidency. We believe that quarterly reporting is dead. The changes we have seen on quarterly reporting have been very welcome. I am not sure that we need the publication of the statement contained in the compromise, but I do not see that as a particular problem, so it is an acceptable part of the compromise package. Mandatory quarterly reporting would have been extremely damaging and costly and would not have yielded real benefits in terms of transparency for investors. The transparency package also has vital clarifications on custodians and asset managers and sensible provisions on dissemination of information: ensuring fast dissemination across Europe, but allowing Member States the option if they want to require publication in a newspaper. I am particularly pleased with the result on bonds in relation to third country issuers. Many of their problems have been solved and I am pleased that elements of my amendment that looked at annual reporting and the issue of equivalence for third country issuers have been taken on board in the presidency package. On the ISD, I would like to thank a number of people: Mrs Cazalet from the Secretariat, my assistant Sarah McCarthy, the Shadow George Katiforis, who has given me a tremendous amount of help, and Mr Karas, the coordinator of the Group, who has operated in a very fair manner on this very difficult dossier. I will be voting for the presidency package. I would urge other Members to do the same. I am concerned about it, however: there are many aspects of it which I think are unsatisfactory, but there is no doubt that it is much better than the common position, which is why I propose to support it. There are positive points in the package as will be agreed tomorrow. Execution-only services and direct-offer products will be permitted to continue under this directive. The framework for those products is more complex than I would like, but execution-only business can continue. I would welcome it if the Commissioner would confirm very clearly today that the new Investment Services Directive – ISD-2 – will not prevent people from using the execution-only services and direct offer products that they find so valuable. It is regrettable that the Council has rejected amendments on country of origin. But, having said that, removing most of the powers of host countries is very welcome and will contribute to cross-border trade. We are left with an unnecessarily complex framework for branches, but we are moving a step closer towards proper home country control and country of origin. I also welcome the inclusion of investment advice in ISD-2. It will plug the gaps that exist in some countries where advice is not properly regulated. This has an impact across Europe, because these services from poorly regulated countries could be sold right across Europe under the e-Commerce Directive. It is vital that we plug those gaps and give investors a proper conduct of business rule and advice protection. I also think investors will find welcome protection with the best-execution rule. I am pleased that many of the elements of the European Parliament's first reading amendments are included in the best execution provisions, and particularly a proportionate and pragmatic approach on best execution which recognises that while it is an objective standard, it is not an absolute standard. I also welcome an extensive framework of post-trade transparency, which will enable the markets to work better and provide welcome investor protection. On customer classification, I hope that ISD-2 is an improvement on ISD-1, where there was insufficient distinction between retail and wholesale investors. It is vital that we have a proper distinction, because each needs a completely different regulatory framework. Welcome technical clarifications on commodity derivatives have also been included, which will give the ISD framework the ability to adapt to innovation in the future in the commodities and derivatives markets, ensuring that new derivatives can be included in the framework in the future and thus providing more investor protection and greater legal certainty. On Article 27 and the concentration rule, after what was frankly a disastrous result in Ecofin, this has been something of a damage limitation exercise for Parliament. Speaking from a United Kingdom perspective, I think it is regrettable that Mr Boateng, the Minister representing the United Kingdom in that instance, was not able to get a better result. In our second reading in the European Parliament, we have succeeded in repairing some of that damage, but it was always going to be difficult to recover from what was an extremely difficult vote in Ecofin last year. While we have taken some steps forward, we have also taken some steps back. To that extent, ISD-2 is a missed opportunity. I fully supported the Commission's proposal to abolish concentration rules, but to a significant degree that attempt has been undermined by what has now been agreed on Article 27. It is a great relief that the threat of companies being required to quote for millions of euros' worth of shares has been averted. The move to standard market size from block size is very welcome and there are other important clarifications, for example, allowing firms better protection against multiple hits. But I still do not believe that we have got the best balance in terms of liquidity and competition. My aspiration was to produce a text which had effective transparency requirements and ensured good price formation without imposing regulatory burdens which were so heavy as to produce a concentration rule by the back door, and to damage liquidity provision. I will support the presidency package but I do not think it has got the balance right. The text still covers too many firms and too much business within the definition of systematic internaliser, possibly jeopardising a range of over-the-counter and traditional wholesale trading. It still leaves firms with significant regulatory burdens if they wish to compete with exchanges, and it is ironic that this piece of legislation is actively forcing firms to take on trading risk which the Basel II framework is telling them to limit. Article 27 will in many ways make it more difficult for firms to compete with exchanges, which means that sadly investors will not get all the benefits of a wide range of choice of services and reduced transaction costs that would come with a fully competitive market. I am sorry that we had such resistance to more competition from certain members of the Council. It is vital that this directive is implemented in a sensible way, both by the Commission, by CESR – 'Caesar' – and by the regulatory authorities in each country. If it is regulated in a sensible way, it will yield dividends in terms of increased competition. I would appeal to the Commission to ensure that it is implemented sensibly because that is the only way we will achieve real gains in terms of competition and liquidity for investors across Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE