Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Grand Committee

My Amendment 140 would give the Government an opportunity on transition plans. It would ensure that we avoid a scenario of protracted uncertainty for the private sector around whether implementation may be so piecemeal or partial that it does not bring about the level of transparency and consistency that investors need. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say in his response that the Government will use the Bill to implement their given commitments on transition plans.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for being unable to take part at Second Reading due to other commitments. However, my interest in nature and climate-related issues in previous Bills on financial services and markets is a matter of record. Two amendments in this group are in my name. I thank my co-signatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Coffey, for their support because cross-party support sends an unequivocal message to government that this is not ideological but concerns the health of our environment and the future of our natural world.

I will speak first to Amendment 142 on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. In essence, it seeks to insert a duty into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—FSMA—so that regulators must

“make rules requiring such regulated persons as they consider appropriate to disclose information relating to nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities”.

Nature-related dependencies are things from nature on which businesses rely, such as water, soil, pollination and healthy ecosystems. Nature-related impacts are harms or pressures that companies themselves put on nature, such as through land use change, pollution or deforestation.

Clearly, nature is financially material, and nature is under threat. Investors are demanding comparable information on how nature loss, biodiversity, water, land use and similar issues could affect companies and profits. This amendment would deliver just that. It would tell the regulators to write the rules and decide which regulated persons should be in scope, shifting TFND reporting from a mainly voluntary framework towards a mandatory requirement. The Dasgupta review clearly showed us that nature is not an externality but an economic foundation. It is, quite frankly, utterly barmy to degrade the very assets on which markets depend.

Deforestation-driven biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are high-level threats to UK national security, according to the Government’s own assessment in their report, Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security. Four out of the six ecosystems identified as critical to the UK’s security are forests. I utterly endorse the excellent speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, at Second Reading, in which she said that having

“a stiff gin by your side”—[Official Report, 8/6/26; col. 1190.]

is necessary before reading the report.

Nature loss is no longer an environmental issue. It is a national security and market stability risk, and it must be treated with the urgency it deserves. Climate change is accelerating, as borne out last week by temperature records being broken daily. The measured carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere serve as the single best real-time signal of whether the world, as a whole, is on track to a safe future. It is currently at 430.52 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels hovered at around 280 parts per million and never went above 300 per million. We are in uncharted territory and we need urgent action. I look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 142.

Turning to Amendment 172, I again thank my co-signatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Penn, each of whom has been a consistent and persuasive advocate for regulatory coherence in addressing the urgent challenge of deforestation. This is a crisis with profound implications for the health of our planet and for those who depend on forest ecosystems, particularly indigenous communities, which are both their most effective stewards and, too often, their greatest victims. This amendment would introduce three clear and necessary measures.

First, it would require that within three months of the passage of this Act

“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under Schedule 17 … of the Environment Act 2021”

concerning the

“use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity”.

This provision addresses the unacceptable delay in bringing into force measures that Parliament has already approved five years ago. Secondly, it would ensure that at the point those regulations are laid,

“the Secretary of State must immediately commence”

the statutory review required under Section 79 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. That review is essential to understanding how financial systems intersect with and potentially drive deforestation risk. Thirdly, the amendment specifies that the regulations must include provision for both “due diligence requirements” and

“reporting obligations for regulated persons”.

The intention is straightforward but critical: to place due diligence and transparency at the centre of the regulatory framework. By making these elements explicit, the amendment would signal Parliament’s clear expectation that businesses will be subject not merely to guidance but to enforceable obligations, both to undertake robust supply-chain checks and to report publicly on their compliance. Furthermore, by aligning the introduction of these regulations with the commencement of the Financial Services and Markets Act review, the amendment would promote better co-ordination across government and ensure that market implications, including those for regulated financial institutions, are considered alongside the development of the regulatory regime itself.

As Sir Ian Cheshire, former chair of Barclays and head of the Global Resources Initiative taskforce, noted in his open letter of 23 January 2023, addressed to the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury and Members of this House, “regulating supply chains alone” is not sufficient. He recommended that the Government should make it unlawful

“for financial institutions to invest in or lend to … companies that are unable to demonstrate forest risk commodities have been produced in compliance with ‘local laws’”.

This amendment seeks in part to address that gap. It reflects the compelling case that it is more effective to require financial institutions to undertake due diligence at the point at which finance is first provided, rather than attempting to remedy harms further downstream.

Although I welcome the Government’s recent announcement that Northern Ireland will follow the EU’s deforestation regulations, due to come into force on 31 December 2026, and their stated ambition to align rules across Great Britain with those requirements, the position remains one of stated intent rather than concrete action. The commitment to consult on new regulations requiring larger businesses to ensure that forest-risk commodities are produced legally in their country of origin is a step forward, but it falls short of providing the firm timelines and enforceable measures that are now very overdue. It is, after all, five years since Parliament set out its expectation that illegal deforestation would be addressed in regulation. In that context, Amendment 172 remains both necessary and timely. I hope the Minister will accept that these measures are necessary now, not tomorrow—whenever tomorrow may be. My colleagues and I from across the House will push hard for that acceptance.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Grand Committee

I will not be pressing my amendment at this stage, but I hope I have convinced the Minister that there is something worth closer examination here. The current situation is unjustifiable and unsustainable. I would be grateful for a meeting with the Minister, although I am happy to be referred onwards to Treasury Ministers, where the power to resolve this impasse really sits. I look forward to his response to the questions that I have asked.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for tabling this amendment, to which I have added my name, as I did to a similar amendment that she tabled to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I apologise to the Committee for not being available to speak at Second Reading.

I put my name to this amendment because votes reporting is an important issue of openness and transparency that underpins good stewardship and good governance, without which the road to net zero and our nature goals becomes that much more chaotic. At this point I should declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet.

As things currently stand, at AGMs investment managers vote on behalf of the pension funds they manage on issues that pension savers may have concerns about. Some, if not most, savers would prefer to know what their money is signed up to, and they cannot easily find out what their money is supporting, nor can pension schemes. This is because there is zero meaningful onus on investment managers to report their actions in a full, timely and easily digestible format, and that is important as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted. The outcome is that pension schemes do not have the information to inform their savers, and it is for this reason that the amendment has support from the Association of Member Nominated Trustees, which has £1 trillion of assets under management.

In the US, it is mandatory. There, voting at AGMs is a key tool in ensuring good corporate governance, good long-term investor returns and good economic outcomes more broadly. What assessment have the Government made of America’s way of including people in decisions made in their name about their money? Why is it that in a relatively light-touch regime that is doable, but here it is not? Why is it that UK investment managers can comply with US rules when they operate in the US but find it too burdensome to do it here? The Government say that they see the need for action, but we see no action year after year. This amendment would enable pension schemes and ultimately pension savers more effectively to hold their investment managers to account for action on climate and nature, as well as on other matters.

I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in what she is aiming to do, and I add the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has put her name to the amendment. She asked me to convey her apologies to the Committee for not being present; she is not feeling well enough to have stayed to the current late hour.

I hope that once we hear from the Labour Party we will be able to say that the amendment has cross-party support.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support this amendment. We are a capitalist society, and capitalism relies on a return on capital being provided to the people who provide the capital. In that sense, our capital has become very concentrated in institutional hands. Decisions are taken by a cadre of fund managers, of whom I used to be one—well-paid people who thoroughly approve of people in industries being well paid, particularly senior managers. More and more of the profits of industry are diverted to the people running them and to the people running the investments in them, and the amount getting through to the individual investor becomes limited.

What is the force in any other direction? What is the motivation for people running a company to do more than please their fund managers? They do not have to have the interest of the individual owners at the end of this. In the end, this results in bad decisions being taken on the allocation of capital and on the flow of money within a corporation. These will not be in the interests of paying the pensions of the people whose money is invested in these companies.