Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Index 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 29 March 2012 - Brussels OJ edition

Derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (A7-0223/2011 - Werner Langen) (vote)
MPphoto
 

  Werner Langen, rapporteur.(DE) Madam President, the committee chair will make a statement on this legal question in a few minutes. The Council and Parliament have rejected the Commission’s motion. Thus, there is agreement between both legislative institutions that the motion is not justified.

However, allow me to make a few comments on the project. This regulation on derivatives is one of the centrepieces of financial market control. Three-and-a-half years after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, we are now making sure that future over-the-counter derivatives agreements are managed centrally, also requiring that they should be backed with equity capital and reported to the relevant authorities. The volume in 2011 was USD 708 billion, 12 times the gross world product of the entire world population of 7 billion people. The new regulations finally give supervisory authorities an insight into this huge, confusing market. The risk to financial instruments is reduced. By deploying central counterparties, who must be consulted on every transaction in the future, we have established stringent requirements, including regulations for institutions in third countries.

At this point, I would like to thank all my colleagues, as well as the Commission, and Commissioner Barnier. I find it regrettable that the Rules of Procedure do not allow a thorough debate for such an important vote. In view of the fact that the number of informal trialogues is mounting, I would call for a swift change to these provisions. After all, the result of the debate held here in Parliament in July 2011 has been the subject of trialogue negotiations ever since and we have not had an opportunity to discuss it. The Rules of Procedure need to be changed in this regard.

(Applause)

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy