Mr President, the report I have the honour of presenting is an own-initiative report on credit rating agencies, which are business organisations of good standing in the markets. However, their reputation has been shaken somewhat by the recent spate of financial scandals, starting with Enron and ending with Parmalat. The Parmalat fraud is especially relevant as it concerns bondholders: precisely the section of the market that rating agencies are supposed to protect. Until a few days before the crash of these companies, they were unable to do anything about protecting the public. These failures have prompted debates in the United States, investigations in the US Congress, the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the International Organization of Securities Commission and other international fora. There is a specific European angle on this matter. Rating agencies that are one hundred years old in the United States are relative newcomers in Europe. In some cases they have given indications of not understanding European business mentality. They have created friction, especially in Germany. The other point of special European interest is the inevitable remark that whatever the nature of the regulation of the agencies – however mild and indirect – it has its seat exclusively in the United States, in the form of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The fact that nothing similar exists in Europe makes for an unbalanced transatlantic relationship which might become troublesome if it is not redressed in time. These considerations prompted the original proposal of the report in favour of the formation of a European registration authority to be considered by the Commission, an authority to which agencies would report on their activities and with which they could establish a regulatory dialogue, a dialogue of equals based on the European Security Ratings Committee, on topics of mutual interest – excluding, of course, any intervention in the substance of the opinions issued by the agencies. It is interesting that the Securities and Exchange Commission has recently expressed interest in making contact with the CSR on this matter. The majority of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs found this proposal too avant-garde and recommended re-examining the whole area of operations of rating agencies without including in their recommendation anything as specific as the creation of a European registration authority. With all due respect for the majority opinion of my colleagues, I beg to differ for two reasons. Firstly, because a regulatory authority operates in the United States and, secondly, because – as I have already said – the lack of a corresponding authority in Europe creates a potentially harmful imbalance. I have therefore asked my political group to help me out by resubmitting the proposal for a European registration agency in the form of an amendment, and I urge all colleagues who originally may have differed on this point to think again. This is not a party political issue, but it is certainly a political issue because it involves the interests of Europe as a whole. The alternative is that the agencies will eventually – such is the strength of feeling in favour of some regulation of their activities – be forced to report to 15 or 25 national financial authorities in Europe, something the agencies themselves must view with horror. Rating agencies must continue to do good work. We have proposed no heavy-handed regulation, but, without a European registration agency, we will be failing to attain what is obviously our main objective. While thanking my colleagues for supporting various other useful proposals, I urge them to think again about this.

Political group: PSE