Financial Services and Markets Bill

Committee (7th Day)

Debate on Amendment 168 resumed.

I think we had got on to Amendment 199. Is that correct?

Amendment 168 is the lead amendment; the other amendments are grouped with it. People can debate any amendment within the group.

Amendment 168 is the lead amendment; that is absolutely right. I think we had got on to Amendment 199. Is that correct, Minister? Are you happy with that?

Noble Lords can speak to any amendment in the group once the lead amendment has been put, I believe.

One or two people had talked to Amendment 199 and I was just about to do the same. Is that okay?

It is in order to speak to any amendments in the group.

I apologise; I am completely confused.

The due diligence system reintroduced for companies under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act is world-leading in its intentions. However, we have to finish the job to end our financing of deforestation. The GRI Taskforce has been unequivocal in its advice that financial actors should conduct deforestation due diligence too for their own sake as well as for everyone else’s. In the meantime, as somebody mentioned last time, Britain’s financial institutions are contributing $16.6 billion to businesses implicated in deforestation.

This is a huge global issue. Experts say that we must end commodity-driven deforestation by 2025 if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade. At present, as a result of those investments, climate-critical tropical forests are shrinking. This is absolutely appalling. The UN’s high-level climate champions have begun to refer to deforestation as the new coal in investors’ portfolios. There should be no investment in companies involved in deforestation. It is quite simple.

The amendment responds powerfully to the GRI Taskforce’s advice. It has significant cross-party backing in the House of Commons. The Government are inclined to go for a weaker policy against the advice of their own expert task force on deforestation. I hope that the Minister will do all she can to persuade her colleagues in the other place to support Amendment 199 before Report. Rishi Sunak has promised that the UK

“will be the world’s first net zero financial centre”.

His support for Amendment 199 is an obvious step on the way. I thank the WWF, Greenpeace, Global Witness and Mighty Earth for their excellent joint briefing. I call on all noble Lords to support Amendment 199.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 168 and 201. I refer to my interests as a trustee of defined benefit and master trust pension schemes.

The loss of financial stability can occur quickly. History shows us that risks that crystallised and caused that instability were often insufficiently captured by regulators and that actions to mitigate their impact were not taken in good time. It would be extraordinary for any Government to believe that financial regulators could deliver the objectives of competitiveness and sustainable growth without embedding in that delivery the finance sector’s response to climate risk.

Climate change brings immense risk, but it is not specifically factored into either the regulatory capital risk requirement for banks or the solvency requirements for insurers. We already see the weaknesses: banks and insurers still retain exposure to fossil fuel investments and a significant number of the largest UK banks do not have interim targets to cut funded emissions. I could quote many other statistics to confirm that weakness.

As the Bank of England stated in the executive summary of the Results of the 2021 Climate Biennial Exploratory Scenario, its assessment is that UK banks and insurers still need to do much more to understand and manage their exposure to climate risks. The Bank admits that there is a lack not only of managing that exposure but of understanding it. That makes Amendment 168 important in calling for a PRA review of capital adequacy and solvency capital requirements, having regard to the full implications of climate change physical, transitional and liability risks and for financial stability.

Failing effectively to factor climate risks into regulatory requirements tolerates the failure of firms that make unwise bets on the continuation of “business as usual”. Inevitably, it necessitates government intervention, socialising of losses and consequences for taxpayers. When a similar amendment was sought previously, the Government argued that the CBES work that I have just referred to would assess the implications of climate change risks for investment, stranded assets and financial stability. However, we have heard from speakers in this debate, including my noble friend Lady Worthington, and read from informed commentators worrying concerns with the work, reinforcing the need for the PRA to review its risk assessment approach and modelling. In a Policy Exchange publication, the former chief economist of ING Group put those concerns succinctly when he concluded that

My Lords, I will address the amendments just addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and others, which are intended to discourage investment in fossil fuels. There are two routes to net zero: one is to phase out demand, which is the route that we have adopted in this country. My noble friend Lord Deben, who is not here today, provides guidance and forecasts to the Government on how to phase out that demand to meet net zero by 2050. That is the sensible way of doing it. The alternative is to try to phase out supply. If fossil fuel producers invest in more production capacity for those fuels than is needed for declining demand, they will lose money. They may even be left with oilfields that have not been fully depleted —it could not happen to a nicer bunch of people.

I am really touched that so many green noble Lords and noble Baronesses are determined to protect the oil industry from losing money. That is not their real intent, of course; that is to discourage investment and reduce it as fast as possible, if need be by reducing the supply of fossil fuels faster than we reduce demand for them. If they achieve that, we will have a shortage of fossil fuels. We will have rising prices with those shortages and will have done to ourselves exactly what Putin has done at the moment. Is that what they want?

Noble Lords pretend on the first argument that they want to save the banks and the industry from being left with stranded assets. As I say, it is touching that they should be so concerned about them, but why do they think they are better at forecasting the future demand and supply balance for fossil fuels than the oil companies and others whose business it is, or others in the City whose business it is to try to work out whether it is worth investing? I used to be an energy analyst in the City; it was my job to try to forecast these things. In some years, I was the most highly rated analyst in the City on these matters, presumably because I was making long-term forecasts and no one could tell that they would prove wrong. But the idea that the PRC knows better than people in the City—

I find the noble Lord’s contributions really very valuable. But on supply and demand, for him to label us people who just do not want fossil fuels is so incorrect. We need more energy, but it does not have to come from fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is supported to an extent.

By whom?

It has been supported by Governments, through subsidies, through tax breaks, through decommissioning tax reliefs—any number of routes for support exist. So I say to the noble Lord: please do not try to categorise the noble Baronesses who have spoken on this issue as people who do not like fossil fuels. What we do not want is for fossil fuels to be needlessly supported in the future when they are patently no longer able to support themselves.

I agree with the noble Baroness. I do not want to support fossil fuels. If she looked at the tax revenue levied on the production and consumption of fossil fuels, she would see that it is enormous. To describe that as a subsidy or support is very strange. But to the extent that there is anything that is a subsidy, I am with her: let us remove it, but that is not what these amendments do. They simply aim to make it more expensive to invest in fossil fuels. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Castle—whatever it is; bouncy castle—is upset at being described as being against fossil fuels. I would have thought that she would be positively flattered. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is offended at being told that she is trying to discourage the production of fossil fuels; I thought she was. I am simply saying let us stick to the CCC’s recommendations of phasing out demand and we can leave the supply side to look after itself. We should not pretend that we know better than the industry what is likely to prove excessive or insufficient.

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could say a little about stranded assets; I think we have had this exchange before. If stranded assets transpire—from where I am sitting, I think that is inevitable—what assurance can he give that the cost of those stranded assets will not be socialised?

Clearly, the Government ought to deal with that problem. These amendments do not deal with that problem. If there is a problem, if the noble Baroness thinks that BP or Shell will go bankrupt and be unable to pay for the liabilities it incurred, we should take steps to deal with that situation. I do not think it is likely but if she thinks it is that serious, she should table amendments that would deal with that, but these amendments do not. They simply make it more expensive to invest in things which we are going to continue consuming, according to the Government’s own plans and the CCC’s own projects and recommendations, in considerable quantities until 2050.