Mr. Gerry Cross:

They also reflect, and this goes back to the Chair's question, the criteria that are inherent in the prospectus regulation when it comes to where the home member state is originally decided. There is a coherence there. Fundamentally, as a public authority, we have to look at the decision that is put to us. We have to ask what is reasoned, proportionate and the correct decision for us to make in this case. Where we have set out criteria - yes, they are not exhaustive; there could be other ones - one of those criteria clearly states it is the public offer that is a key factor in determining this. That is effectively constraining our determination.

Moreover, those criteria are not criteria that we simply said we would write them in when we were writing these guidelines. They reflect the criteria in the prospectus regulation itself in relation to how to think about the connectivity between a prospectus and a jurisdiction. When you think about it, the State of Israel had been offering bonds in this jurisdiction. Now it was not going to be offering bonds in this jurisdiction and it requested a transfer. Strictly speaking, the Senator is right in that it was a decision for us - of course, it was - but clearly we did not have a legal basis to say no, we are not going to transfer this.