Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we shall vote on the draft directive on prospectuses, which should make it possible for issuers to be granted a single passport for prospectuses in the European Union. The Commission’s proposal is in many respects an invaluable step forward. However, closer examination and contact with the market participants have clearly revealed a number of problem areas in the original proposal that need amending. Within the limitations of my speaking time I can mention just the major necessary amendments we adopted in committee. The issuers must be given free powers of decision-making regarding which Member State’s stock exchanges or markets they wish to be listed on. There are many different types of securities for which there are no markets in some Member States. Certain market places have considerably more experience of these types of securities. It would therefore be better for EU issuers if in future they could, as is the case today, have their prospectus vetted by the competent authorities of the country where they are making the public offer or are admitted to trading, rather than in the Member State where they have their registered office. Companies that wish to remain in their home country will obviously not benefit from this sort of single market and so will have no need for a securities prospectus of this kind. I therefore support the proposal that Member States could grant the right to make an exception in the case of those companies below a certain threshold seeking a listing in only one Member State. This would make the work of SMEs, in particular, easier, but would of course also offer them the opportunity, if they so wished, to acquire such a single market prospectus, thereby enjoying the advantages of the single market. Translation costs have been a considerable problem and must be reduced to make it easier for companies to be listed abroad. Securities prospectuses are usually very long and contain a lot of detail. It is quite enough that the registration document should be drafted in the language that is customary in that sphere of finance and that just the Summary Note should be translated into the language of the host Member State. This is a clearer solution than the Commission’s original proposal and will benefit both issuers and investors. The Commission’s proposed mandatory annual ‘shelf registration’ system is also problematic. The system would enable companies which repeatedly return to the markets in several countries to raise capital without having to update the entire prospectus. This is of course a positive move. The approach is not appropriate, however, in the very common cases where finance is being sought just on one occasion or at intervals greater than one year. I would particularly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Huhne, and my other colleagues on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their excellent and constructive cooperation. We achieved broad and balanced consensus regarding the necessary amendments. I hope that we can remain in agreement in tomorrow’s vote. Any deviation from the line of compromise achieved by the Committee would considerably hamper the creation of financial markets in the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE