Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-09-Speech-1-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040209.4.1-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work on this issue. It is topical and Mr Katiforis has brought great insight into this issue. I am particularly grateful that he has taken on a number of the concerns I expressed in my amendments. I hope that a deal may be reached between the PPE-DE Group and the rapporteur. That has not proved possible – so far – but I am sure there is a great deal in his report that we very much support.
In a slightly shock reversal of the normal roles within the PPE-DE Group, I found that the rest of my Group were more cautious about the idea of further regulation than I was: usually I am the one in my Group arguing for a more deregulatory approach. What is very important – and it was stated clearly by Mr Radwan, the shadow rapporteur – is that yes, this is an important issue; yes, questions need to be answered about how ratings agencies work and yes, questions need to be asked about whether we should have a registration scheme for ratings agencies. The conclusion the Group came to was that we should not prejudge the outcome of this process.
It is important that Members of Parliament and committees look carefully at the issues raised by Mr Katiforis in his report, but we do not want to prejudge the outcome and say at this point that yes, we should have a European registration authority. We in this Group are wary of the cost of regulation. We are concerned about what a significant step it would be to bring rating agencies within a regulatory framework or a registration scheme, and we must be cautious in our response to recent financial scandals.
There is a tendency among some financial commentators to assume that we must have further regulation following Parmalat, and the organisations that are most squarely in the frame for further regulation and registration are rating agencies. We should look objectively and calmly at what happened at Parmalat and see what response is necessary so as to avoid any hasty or knee-jerk reactions, because it is difficult to see how changing the scheme or regulation for rating agencies could have prevented the Parmalat scandal.
There will always be people who are prepared to break the law, as they were at Parmalat, and no matter how wide-ranging and effective the scheme of regulation, whether it be for hedge funds or rating agencies or whatever else, we are not going to prevent that kind of criminal conduct. We can try and make it happen less often, but it is impossible to prevent. Questions have to be asked about rating agencies and how they function, but it is premature to reach the conclusion that further regulation or a registration scheme are necessarily needed at this stage."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples