Madam President, thanks to the corrections made by the Council – corrections that Mrs Villiers is unhappy about but accepts – we have arrived at a text for the Investment Services Directive (ISD) that is deemed acceptable by all parties. I will not turn my nose up but all the same I want to say that we are agreeing to a change without being too sure where it will lead us. Removing the order concentration rule from the areas in which it still exists means allowing competition between three systems. Will the conditions for competition be fair? It is clear that companies established in the City, and mainly US companies, have done a lot to promote their own interests. The risk is that they will capture a major share of the European market, to the detriment of other actors, and that they will thus exercise significant control over the financial resources of the various Member States of the Union. The Council and the Commissioner have, however, ensured a degree of balance and have not exempted companies from the transparency obligations. They can still avoid these obligations if transactions involve above-average amounts. I am told that small countries and even some large countries are still controlling the national market share, but I doubt that this division will be viable and we do not know what strategies the various actors, including the stock markets, will adopt. Are the conditions of general interest well established? Can we deter the abuse and insider trading that internationalisation allows to flourish or, in any event, can allow to flourish and can we ensure a high-quality price formation process? This appears unlikely. For example, the volume of above-average transactions that will be exempt from pre-trade transparency requirements might account for 50% of the total for the most liquid shares on the Paris stock exchange. Our successors will thus have to supervise the implementation of a directive that is essential and complex but which lacks clear balance. We would advise them to be as vigilant as possible. As regards the directive on the transparency obligations, we have ended up with an overall compromise that is the result of good work. I will, nonetheless, state some reservations. What is most positive is clearly the rejection of the obligation to provide quarterly accounts. Equally positive is the fact that the law of the country of origin will not apply as far as of issuer liability is concerned. On the contrary, our demands concerning complete information about the size of a company’s finances and about the social and economic impact, were rejected by the Council and postponed until a later directive, as were, furthermore, our demands concerning information on the remuneration of company directors. I believe that this is a mistake. The most serious issue, however – and this is neither the fault of the rapporteur nor of the directive – is that the quality of information essentially depends on accounting standards and that the situation in this area is extremely serious. When the European institutions gave full power to the International Account Standards board and gave a commitment to apply these rules as of 2005, I think that they made a very serious mistake. Estimating the basic value of companies, banks and insurance companies mainly according to the market price – deemed to be ‘fair value’ in the prevailing climate – is a source of bias and fundamental insecurity. I therefore suggest that we act very firmly against any illegitimate compromise on Rules 39 and 42 and that the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (Efrag) and its resources are strengthened as a matter of urgency and, if necessary, the 2005 deadline is put back.

Political group: GUE-NGL