HM Treasury has made the Central Counterparties (Equivalence) Regulations 2026, a statutory instrument signed on 8 July 2026, laid before Parliament on 13 July 2026 and due to come into force on 3 August 2026. The legislation.gov.uk text states that the measure is made under Articles 25(6) and 84a(2) of UK EMIR, the UK framework governing OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories. For non-specialists, a central counterparty, or CCP, sits between buyers and sellers in a financial transaction and manages counterparty risk if one side fails. In policy terms, this instrument is about when overseas clearing houses can be treated as operating under standards the Treasury regards as equivalent to the UK regime.
The core legal effect is narrow but important. Under Article 25(1) of UK EMIR, an overseas CCP may provide clearing services to UK clearing members or UK trading venues only if it is recognised by the Bank of England. The Treasury's equivalence decision is therefore a legal precondition rather than a substitute for recognition. The Regulations apply across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They do not grant blanket access to all foreign clearing houses. Instead, they establish the jurisdictions, regulators and categories of CCP that can fall within an equivalence determination for UK purposes.
HM Treasury's explanatory note says the determinations cover certain CCPs established in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. In each case, the determination applies only where the CCP is established in the named country and is authorised, licensed or otherwise subject to supervision by the regulatory authority identified in Part 1 of the Schedule. Regulation 2 sets three tests for each specified overseas jurisdiction. The Treasury must be satisfied that the jurisdiction's legal and supervisory arrangements impose ongoing requirements equivalent to Title IV of EMIR, that supervision and enforcement are effective on an ongoing basis, and that the jurisdiction operates an effective equivalent system for recognising CCPs from other countries.
The most detailed tailoring appears in Part 2 of the Schedule for certain SEC-registered CCPs in the United States. The instrument states that a specified US CCP is covered only where its internal rules and procedures include equivalent requirements on procyclicality for derivative contracts, liquidation period time horizons for derivatives executed on a regulated market, and the financial resources expected under Article 43(2) of EMIR in relation to the default fund and other resources. The named entities are Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, identified by SEC Central Index Key 000123861, and ICE Clear Credit LLC, identified by SEC Central Index Key 0001559962. That drafting matters because the US determination is not expressed as a broad approval of every SEC-registered clearing agency; it is attached to named CCPs and to additional internal rule conditions.
For market participants, the practical point is that equivalence and recognition remain separate stages. A UK firm cannot assume that an overseas CCP is automatically able to serve the UK market simply because its home regime is listed in the Schedule. The Bank of England must still recognise the CCP under UK EMIR before it can provide clearing services to UK clearing members or trading venues. That distinction matters for compliance, legal due diligence and operational planning. Firms with cross-border clearing exposures will need to check both the Treasury's jurisdiction-level determination and the status of the relevant CCP itself, particularly where services involve derivatives, regulated markets or US entities covered by the SEC conditions.
The instrument also gives a clear indication of the Treasury's supervisory approach. The test is not limited to whether foreign rules look similar on paper. The Regulations require ongoing compliance with binding requirements, effective ongoing supervision and enforcement, and an equivalent recognition framework in the overseas jurisdiction. In other words, access is framed around continuing regulatory outcomes rather than a one-off comparison exercise. According to the explanatory note, no full impact assessment has been produced because no, or no significant, effect on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. A de minimis impact assessment is available from HM Treasury and is published alongside the Explanatory Memorandum on legislation.gov.uk.
Signed by Lilian Greenwood and Deirdre Costigan as two of the Lord Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, the Regulations provide a short implementation window before commencement on 3 August 2026. That timetable points to a measure intended to provide legal certainty rather than a long transition programme. For policy readers, the significance lies in the structure of access. The Treasury is using equivalence determinations to define which overseas CCP frameworks can support Bank of England recognition, while keeping the UK recognition threshold in place. For the wider public, this is a technical but material rule change affecting how international clearing services can be offered into UK markets and the safeguards expected around that access.