The  believes that an improved network of Member State business
registers is necessary primarily because the existing EBR network does not
include all member states. There is also a mix of public and private sector
organizations which mean that there are differing priorities for EBR. There
are a number of areas where closer cooperation between the registries would
be beneficial, for example to facilitate various aspects of European company
law to help directives such as the cross-border mergers directive and the
statute for a European company. It would also help registries to interact where
no legislative framework exists, for example the transfer of a company seat
throughout Europe.

An improved network would improve the transparency of company information
throughout Europe and make it more accessible for customers without the
need to visit each registry individually.  company information is transparent
and easily accessed through the Companies House website but it is important for  business that equivalent
information is available across Europe. This is particularly important at a time
of financial recovery when business is often conducted across borders and
can involve a number of different companies.

The EBR strategy has highlighted areas for improvement and the  is keen
to enhance EBR. It needs commitment from members to achieve greater use
of its services. These must be customer focussed, resilient, reliable and
ideally self financing. A number of steps are being taken to achieve
improvements (such as the development of key working groups to drive
change) and membership is growing.

The work of the Commission in identifying options and producing a green
paper demonstrates the importance of this work and will be helpful in
improving the network of registries.

The  would support a requirement from the Commission for European
registries to cooperate with each other. However the preference would be to
have a simple solution rather than create a legislative burden and potential
cost to registries in order to comply. The benefit of looking at this issue can
be shown through the  experience of the current EBR structure.
Companies House has not been able to join the existing EEIG structure
because of the reasons outlined above. This has resulted in the  not being
able to take a full part in decision making of the EBR Board and ISA which is
matter of regret. Companies House has worked with EBR previously to see if
there is an alternative vehicle and would support the continuation of this work.
The suggested option by the Commission to lay down a requirement to
connect all business registers may be one way to do this though this will of
course require more thought.

One of the beneficial features of EBR is the flexibility and informality of the
structure. This needs a light touch and would be most effective if Member
States were left to agree on how the network would be set up by means of a
governance agreement. Companies House was involved in the development
of the current EBR Information Sharing Agreement (ISA) and this would be a
good starting point for a developing a governance agreement which could be
shared between registries.

If it is decided to formalize a European company register network the 
would like to see the current EBR network developed rather than duplicating
the effort that has already been made. The EBR is a good example of what
can be achieved in a practical way as a result of registries working together to
resolve common problems.

The  is generally supportive of proposals to centralize as much information
as possible and ensure that users are able to interrogate information as easily
as possible. We would be open to further discussion of connecting the
network of business registers to the electronic network set up under the
Transparency Directive, however, the electronic network has not yet been set
up and the individual storage mechanisms have been implemented in many
different ways. There will therefore be significant technical barriers to
overcome to link the two systems in both the Member States and then on a
European Basis.

There is no doubt that these matters require a greater level of communication
between registers than in the past. For example, under the Statute for a
European Company when an SE transfers to a different member state the
deletion of the old registration is reliant on a notification being sent from the
new registry to the old registry. A delay to this notification will delay the
successful transfer of an SE. The focus has moved increasingly to developing
solutions (through BRITE for example) and is not just about accessing
company information. As confirmed at meetings and EU working groups on
this matter, the  continues to support the use of EBR for this purpose.

In addition, Companies House is part of a working group set up by members
of the European Commerce Registries Forum (ECRF) to look at closer
working relationships between registries on issues such as the transfer of seat
for SEs and facilitating aspects of the cross-border mergers directive. This
group is working with EBR who would develop technical solutions in this area.

The  believes there are a number of potential areas that closer working
between registries could facilitate over and above looking solely at cross-
border mergers and seat transfer. Some of these have already been
discussed with and formed part of the focus of work by EBR and they
naturally align with the work of business registries. The EBR was created
specifically for business registers and therefore has a very good
understanding of the differing legislative frameworks that the European
business registers operate in, and the barriers that exist to cooperation.

The list below provides a number of examples where discussions could take
place to enhance the work of registries across Europe. Some of these are
already in development; others are new areas which could be discussed using
the existing EBR network. These include:

          Co-operation between registries to ensure the compliance of
           branches as prescribed by the 11th Company Law Directive

          Links to explore ways to reduce the burden on filings ≠ perhaps by
           use of the home register

          Further development of the current EBR work to establish a Central
           Name Index (CNI) for all company names registered throughout
           Europe

          Further development of current EBR and ECRF work to establish a
           Directory of Registers (DoR) which would hold basic contact details
           for all registers throughout Europe

          A central database of all SEs registered throughout Europe. At the
           moment an SE can change its name and number when it transfers
           from one member state to another, a central database would help
           customers throughout Europe to track an SE.
          Development of a European-wide policy on company names. This
           could, for example, prevent an SE (or possibly an SPE in the future)
           being able to transfer to the  and register with a name that is
           considered `sensitive', regardless of the language.

          A central database of disqualified directors. Under the Article
           47(2)(b) of the Statute for a European company (SE) a director
           disqualified in any Member State should not act as a member of an
           SE. There is currently no way to comply with this requirement.

As the  company register, Companies House has been using the Internal
Market Information (IMI) system to meet its requirements under the Services
Directive. Companies House was involved in the pilot scheme however usage
has been limited. The system is reliant on structured questions and is not
capable of interrogating large amounts of data, which would limit its
usefulness for some of the work streams outlined above.

As the Commission paper recognizes, the Internal Market Information (IMI)
system has been developed for different purposes to that of EBR. The 
believes that it would be more effective to continue supporting the work of
EBR to address all the issues relating to closer cooperation between business
registers, including cross-border merger, seat transfer and the disclosure
requirement of branches. The  does not rule out exploring options for IMI
but these would necessarily be limited in scope because of the way IMI is
designed. For example, it may be possible to put a simple question to confirm
whether a set list of requirements for transfer had been dealt with by the home
registry ≠ but it would be more logical for EBR to be able to facilitate this.

In addition, the potential integration of the EBR is already part of the action
plan for the e-Justice portal. Therefore, developing the EBR network will also
enhance and contribute to other ongoing projects.

The  was one of the initial partners for the pilot `branch disclosure service'
undertaken by the EBR and is keen to build on this work. The results
produced by the branch disclosure service have been very well-received by
the other Member States and the  would support the service being made
available to all Member States. It would make sense to be able to access
through a single portal rather than making bilateral arrangements with each
member state.
