Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as listed in the register, and I thank the Minister for his engaging introduction. He obviously knows something about this, and I look forward to discussing amendments with him in Committee.

I want to draw the Minister’s and the House’s attention not to the specific things in the Bill but to the specific things that are not. The Minister very adequately outlined how important the UK is as a financial centre. It is home to the biggest share of international bank lending and borrowing, it is big in insurance, it is big in pensions, and it has developed a reputation for being big in sustainable finance. UK financial services have major further potential to accelerate the transition to a climate-positive and nature-positive economy and to unlock green growth. I will focus on that today. It is disappointing that the Bill does not move that agenda forward, and the Short Title gives a bit of wriggle room to get some good stuff in.

One of the Government’s stated goals is to make the UK the green finance capital of the world, so I do not think I am trying to press for something that has not already been endorsed by the Government. I am simply lending a helping hand to get us on the road and to make sure that the Bill is not a missed opportunity. Let me give two brief examples and one more substantial one of the issues that the Bill could have tackled. First, the 2024 manifesto and the financial services growth strategy said that the Government intended

“mandating UK-regulated financial institutions—including banks … pension funds, and insurers—and FTSE 100 companies to develop and implement … transition plans that align with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement”.

These plans would state how each of these institutions would reduce emissions, reshape investments and business activities and manage climate-related risks. The Government consulted in 2025 on taking forward these requirements, but since then there has been silence. The Bill could have introduced legislative action on mandation, and I would like to press for that.

The second example is that the Bill could have made progress on mandating nature-related disclosures. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries warns that too many financial institutions insufficiently account for climate and nature-related risks in their decision-making and risk management. I think that the insurance industry is very rapidly waking up to those impacts. Reporting on climate-related financial disclosures, TCFD, is mandated for the 1,300 largest UK-registered companies, but TNFD, the nature-related financial disclosures, is not, though these are mandated in the rest of the European Union. Sorry—I should not say “the rest of the European Union”, since we are not in the European Union any more, but you know what I mean. If we do not get some movement in the Bill, can the Minister tell us when and how the Government intend to bring forward nature-related financial disclosures in any way other than voluntarily?

The missed opportunity I really want to focus on most today is the action that we need to tackle the financing of international deforestation. I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. Deforestation and nature loss pose material risks to financial systems, as nature-related risks could reduce UK GDP by 6% over the next decade, according to the Green Finance Institute. The World Economic Forum ranks biodiversity loss as the second-greatest long-term risk globally. In the Environment Act 2021, we committed to bringing into force secondary regulations, under Schedule 17, to prevent businesses using illegally produced forest goods and to require them to exercise due diligence systems and introduce reporting. Ministers, if pressed, continue to state that an approach on this will be set “in due course”—I love that phrase. This is strange, because at COP 26 the UK positively led and brokered a deal to end and reverse deforestation by 2030. It was a real piece of global leadership.

Since then, we have had the Government’s own security assessment that deforestation-driven biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are high-level threats to the UK’s national security. If noble Lords have not read the security report Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security, do read it. It is short but devastating, and I would have a stiff gin by your side while you read it. It is an official UK Government security assessment, so it is not just us greenies being alarmist.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 requires that the Treasury

“carry out a review to assess the extent to which regulation of the UK financial system is adequate for the purpose of eliminating the financing of the use of prohibited forest risk commodities”—

a commitment to make sure that we deal with the issue of forest products. I ask the Minister whether the review committed to in that Act is happening and, if not, why not and when it will be undertaken, because its results could have been in this Bill by now. I urge the Minister, at the very least, to persuade his colleagues in other government departments to lay the regulation under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act, which would make it illegal to use commodities in the UK that have been produced on illegally deforested land. This would at least be a step in the right direction.

I do not know about you, but if noble Lords read the Government’s security report, which talks about terrorism, state threats, pandemic risk, economic insecurity and everything else including fallen arches, I think they would be pretty scared by it. I certainly am. Let us not miss the opportunity of the Bill to deliver on the Government’s environmental commitments.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission and my other environmental interests in the register. I have put my name to both Amendments 65 and 90, which I will speak to, and Amendment 97A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I also add my thanks to the Minister for the time and care he has taken to engage with noble Lords over our concerns.

All these amendments arise from the same issue: the inordinate length of time it is taking government to come forward and fulfil its commitments, which have already been agreed some time before. Others have laid out the reasons for the importance of these amendments in detail, and I will not repeat them. I want simply to say that Amendment 65 is already a manifesto commitment: that UK financial institutions should be mandated to develop and implement credible transition plans that align with the Paris Agreement. The amendment that has been laid today is very gentle. It simply asks for a road map within six months of Royal Assent of the Bill and allows the Government plenty of wiggle room to decide how, when and in what manner it would prevent the drifting along that is so at odds with the urgency of the climate change threat.

Business and investors need clarity to be able to have confidence and to deliver growth and competitiveness. As I said, it is a manifesto commitment, and this summer’s heat has underlined its importance. The public want action and it has electoral salience. This is a “just do” moment. I call on my noble friend the Minister to restate the Government’s commitment to the principle and clarify the pace by accepting the amendment or giving some assurance about the timescale to which the Government will deliver these transition plan commitments.

I had a lovely speech written about Amendment 90, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 97A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. They are about an even more delayed issue and would bring in a requirement for government to make regulations, which were already provided for in the Environment Act 2021 —and I stress 2021, five years ago—but are still not implemented, to prohibit the importation and use of illegal forestry goods.

We are now in the position where the European Union is bringing forward its deforestation regulations. They will come into effect at the end of this year for large and medium companies and in 2027 for micro and small enterprises. Northern Ireland will have to follow these EU regs. The Government say that they want to align the rules across GB. At the time of laying the amendment, I felt that it was reasonable to ask for this to be done and completed within seven months, after a five-year delay period and with some consultation already having taken place. All the while, UK financial systems, including public equity and corporate bonds, are funding and fuelling climate and biodiversity declines directly.

In Committee, I lost the will to live, because the previous Minister described all the stages that had to happen. If they did not stretch into infinity, they at least stretched, I thought, for a couple of years. It is a major international embarrassment for the new Government. We led the change internationally for the forest risk commodities action at COP, and we persuaded umpteen other countries to sign up, yet here we are, five years later, still claiming that we want to demonstrate our leading role in green finance while not delivering this legal commitment that we were a prime actor in.

However, this afternoon, I had a little ray of light. I will read to noble Lords some excerpts from a letter that I received from Defra Ministers about pressing the issue of forest risk commodities forward:

“We are progressing the policy and legal work needed at pace to deliver the approach in GB. Defra is developing the consultation material … There is a statutory duty to consult on these regulations … our plan is to consult during Autumn”—


autumn is almost here. It continues:

“We are planning to deliver the legislation required to implement this regime in Great Britain in 2027 … At the centre of my considerations is the pressing need for us to make rapid progress to address the role that deforestation plays in the climate and nature crises. This summer’s extreme heatwaves have brought home the urgency of tackling climate change, where halting and reversing forest loss is a vital part of that effort”.


I absolutely welcome this statement from Defra that it is moving forward at pace. I hope that we can hear today from the Minister that the Treasury is as one with Defra and that we can confidently expect the regulations to be implemented in 2027.

Of course, once the regulations are in place, there is a commitment in the legislation that the Treasury will review legal deforestation challenges and the extent of the deforestation issues for the UK, including the range of products included. I hope that we can get assurances from the Minister on this issue.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 97A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and Amendments 55, 65 and 91 in the group. As others have said, we are grateful for the Government’s support. What the noble Baroness, Lady Young, just said will put a spring in everybody’s step. This is very overdue; as many people have said, this has been going on for five years. Why we have not done it is a puzzle, but it sounds as if some doors are opening.

Sometimes, people get a bit confused about what forest risk commodities are: they are beef, palm oil, soy, cocoa and rubber. On the whole, they are ingredients that run right through the ultra-processed food system, which is already, I am pleased to say, on behalf of the Government, getting a lot of action in terms of trying to slow it down.

The facts are nonsensical. For instance, beef is the largest driver of tropical deforestation. Beef production is responsible for 25% of global land use emissions, but it is estimated that 60% of agricultural land is used for beef production. That includes all the food that is grown for it: soy, palm oil and so on. However, it constitutes only 2% of global calorie consumption. That is just one example of why this is not only terrible for forests, nature and the infrastructure of life, on which we depend and which at the moment is in a very fragile condition, but nonsensical on many other levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, while they do not go quite as far as I would have preferred, I welcome the Government’s amendments that will bring the essential regulatory principle of proportionality back into the discharge of the regulators’ general functions. I think it is a reasonable compromise to have met.

I have added my name to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which emphasises the particular importance of proportionality to small and medium-sized enterprises, on which the regulatory burden can have a much greater impact than on large companies with dedicated compliance departments. I raised this on Monday in relation to the concern that the transfer of AML supervision to the FCA might disproportionately impact smaller firms.

I very much hope that the Minister can say something that will give us comfort that the regulators will take size, as well as other factors, into consideration when deciding what is proportionate regulation and supervision.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement that he was committed to bringing forward amendments at Third Reading. I think it is relevant to this group of amendments. I simply want to draw the House’s attention to two sessions we have had in the last three or four days with the FCA. The Minister very kindly organised a session with the FCA about its role in climate and environment. To be honest, the kindest thing I can say is that I was underwhelmed. I think that it is doing a lot more than it displayed that day. The defensiveness that it demonstrated in front of a bunch of really friendly, helpful and not at all terrifying Baronesses, was a bit of worry to me, to be honest, because I felt there was real defensiveness and push-back against a responsibility. I thought perhaps we had just given it a hard time and it was having a bad day—but we had another session with it yesterday, organised by Peers for the Planet, and I was horrified.

I have the quote here because I wrote it down and then went home and wept. A fairly senior representative of the FCA said, in terms: “The FCA does not have a mandate to tell businesses what they should do on climate and the environment”. I would like the House to know that and the Minister to bear that in mind when he comes forward with his Third Reading amendments, because there is a real need for a stronger line in guidance than we might otherwise imagine.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, fairly early on in Committee I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, who was then in charge of bringing the Bill through, that, when a common opinion was held by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lady Bowles, he ought to listen. Those are the three real experts that we have in the House on markets, regulation and the financial services industry, and all of them set aside political ideology when they come forward with recommendations. They look to the common good and to good functioning, both for markets and for consumers. So I am very glad that on proportionality—which of all the issues was the most serious in the downgrading of principles, quite frankly—that the Minister is now amending that.

I am also appreciative that there is going to be movement on climate change because, as colleagues have said, this is a crisis that is on our doorstep. We have no choice but to act, and it means we need to focus all our strengths on dealing with that crisis. I am very conscious of the impact of financial stability and how it crept up on us, because we only looked at it through a very narrow lens instead of looking across the piece and recognising how holistic and interconnected so many issues are.

I have Amendment 67 in this group. I have to confess that it is an odd place for this amendment, and I shall deal with it briefly. Amendment 67 arose because a number of banks have been refusing to take small businesses and SMEs generally in the defence industry as their customers, usually because they are concerned about reputational risk. That has made it very difficult for those SMEs to raise credit, and it is seriously undermining the UK’s plans to build up its defence forces, which I think we all agree is not acceptable. Some Members may not be aware that the most innovative defence firms are SMEs. It is not just about the big players—the SMEs are critical, particularly at a time when so much is changing in the strategic and defence sector. These small SMEs already face high regulatory hurdles, and they often face slow procurement processes when they work with the Ministry of Defence. The absolutely killer blow is then not to be able to finance the projects, no matter the quality of the contract that they have.

The FCA has said its rules present no obstacle to lending to SMEs and considers that to be a green light, but that is not having very much impact. My amendment essentially attempts to put some welly behind the FCA in dealing with these issues. It would require it to conduct and publish a review at least once every three years, including identifying any barriers. I would have thought that a report like that might get the Government going as well. I know that the Government are aware of the problem, but I emphasise that knowing about it is not enough; they actually need to act and change minds.