Mr President, let this be the end of twelve years’ debate of the ‘UCITS Directive’! In February of last year, we had the first reading. One and a half years’ later, in July, the common position was finally adopted, and now it is our turn. As you know, the first proposal concerns the UCITS itself and what investments it may engage in. The second updates and extends the rules relating to the actual management of the funds. Both proposals were broadly supported by Parliament at first reading. A total of 37 amendments were adopted for the two proposals. Of these, 30 have been accepted in full or in part by the Council. As for UCITS-1, the Council wholly or partially approved 20 of Parliament’s 24 amendments. Moreover, it has made a number of changes of its own. The most important concerns OTC derivatives, the use of which the Commission opposed from the start. However, Parliament considered that OTC derivatives could be employed more broadly, but according to stringent criteria. The Council adopted the same policy. In several cases, the Council adopted a still more prudent approach than Parliament on the issue of OTC derivatives and considered that investments in these had to fulfil more stringent qualitative criteria. Where comitology is concerned, the common position does include comitology provisions in the field of financial services. I nonetheless want to stress that there is no obvious link to the subsequent proposals made by the group chaired by Mr Lamfalussy. The 1985 directive created the so-called UCITS Contact Committee which was set up to advise the Commission. The extension of the Contact Committee’s powers to include new powers was foreseen in the original proposal. Parliament accepts parts of the proposal, but not the part concerning the adjustment of limit values, as adopted by the Council. In the same way, both the Commission and the Council accepted Parliament’s request to limit the scope of the delegation to the Committee. In my view, Parliament has thus agreed to the use of comitology and, moreover, successfully amended the scope of its powers. I do not therefore see any reason to re-open this issue at this juncture. There is nonetheless an amendment from Mr Goebbels, Mr Jonckheer and Mr Herzog. Should it be adopted, I am afraid that we should be facing conciliation and not knowing where it might end. The Lamfalussy agreement is in danger of being delayed and the UCITS directive of being halted in its tracks. That is something that no one can want to see happen. I hope that Mr Goebbels is able to share my view. Turning to UCITS-2, the Council has, for the most part, accepted the concerns expressed by Parliament at first reading. Ten out of Parliament’s 13 amendments have been incorporated in part or in full. The most contentious issue was that of the capital requirement for management companies. The compromise finally reached by the Council is, broadly speaking, in line with Parliament’s stance. Given how complicated these two directives are and how quickly the market is developing, the committee proposes a review of the rules within the next three years. There are two reasons for this. First of all, the compromise reached in Council is a very fragile one, and it would not serve anybody’s interests to open the Pandora’s box of detailed, technical or politically sensitive amendments. A conciliation would delay this review, for which there is already a need, and it might also stop the legislation from ever seeing the light of day. Secondly, the two common positions strike a good balance between investor protection and investment freedom. As I say, the majority of those changes we proposed last time have been introduced. There are nonetheless certain unresolved issues. In my opinion, these are better tackled in a wider context. The committee was kind enough to follow my recommendations. There is therefore only one amendment to UCITS-1, setting out some guidelines for a future review process. A ‘grandfather’ clause is also proposed, whereby existing funds should not have to comply with the new legislation for a transitional period. There is also an amendment to UCITS-2, seeking to align the review period for the capital requirement with the general review. Following the committee’s reading, I have been in contact with the Council, as recently as a few hours ago, and also with the Commission. Together with Mr Goebbels, I am therefore tabling a new amendment to reduce the transitional period. In this way, it will be possible to introduce the UCITS directive into the Member States by 2005, that is to say the year in which the financial action plan is to be implemented. The purpose of this is to avoid conciliation. The work on renewing the regulations governing UCITS has been going on for as long as twelve years and is a clear example of why decision-making within this area needs to be reformed. If Europe is to have a chance of competing with, for example, the American economy, it will have to be possible for changes of a more technical nature to take place significantly more simply and quickly. There is now a good balance between a well-functioning market and reasonably secure protection for consumers. Parliament has been proactive and shown an ability to act quickly and to compromise when it really counts. May we continue along that route! Well thought-out, prompt and effective legislation – that is what Europe needs. I want to end by thanking everyone involved: the Commissioner, his efficient and friendly colleagues and my fellow MEPs who have all really shown willing during this difficult period. I hope that, tomorrow, we can thus draw a line under twelve years’ work for the benefit of Europe’s consumers and investors.

Political group: ELDR