Vicky Ford (ECR). – Madam President, in the financial crash we saw how a shock in one corner of the global financial market, coupled with uncertainty, sent systemic waves across the world. The aim of this regulation is to reduce systemic risk caused by a financial institution’s failure by encouraging central clearing and improving transparency.

It is not intended to lock non-financial companies out of derivative markets, which they use to reduce exposures to fluctuations in foreign exchange, interest rates or raw material prices. Having excluded these companies from this regulation, we must not price them out of these markets when we look at the Capital Requirements Directive later. I would also be concerned if the compromise in this text on what are acceptable liquid assets were to be cut and pasted into the rules on bank liquidity.

Like many colleagues, I hear the concerns of our constituents. They see highly volatile markets for food and fuel, yet prices in the shops and the fuel stations seem only to move in one direction. But derivatives allow producers and suppliers to reduce the volatility and it would be wrong to blame such fluctuations solely on derivatives traders. We need to look at economic factors as well as market abuses across physical and financial markets when we look at MiFID and MAD later this year.

The ambition of this regulation is to reduce systemic risk and it would be a mistake if the end legislation contributes to increasing monopoly powers in our markets.