Decarbonisation and Green Finance

Although the Government has emphasised the need for a “green” recovery, we note it has not, except in limited circumstances, imposed green conditionality on the support it has provided during the coronavirus pandemic. Whilst it is clear that support schemes were required to be provided without delay the Treasury should set out why it did not include green conditionality for the Recovery Loan Scheme announced in the 2021 Budget.

The Government has made bold claims that the economic recovery will be a green recovery. In order to achieve that, the Government needs to set out in its Net Zero Strategy who, at ministerial level, will be responsible for delivering net zero, coordinating the roles of different departments, and ensuring that the UK remains on track to meet its net zero target in a cost-effective way.

In the Net Zero Review final report, the Government should set out what mechanisms it will put in place to integrate the net zero target within departments’ spending review commitments, and how departments will be held to account should they fail to meet their targets.

The Chancellor should publish the Net Zero Strategy as soon as possible and should set out, in conjunction with the Net Zero Review final report, the principles upon which the UK will fund its transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

There are a number of different estimates of the cost of achieving net zero by 2050. However, the Government has not yet committed to its own cost estimates and should set these out as soon as possible. The Government should include in the Net Zero Review final report its own methodology on costs; and it should set out clearly where the uncertainties lie. The Treasury should also include a range of scenarios on how net zero might be achieved, and the associated cost for each scenario.

The Treasury’s Net Zero Review final report should include clear sectoral pathways towards decarbonisation and should address the key policy decisions as to the future of high carbon industries. Particular attention should be given to the potential regional impact of those decisions, and the Government should set out a framework and strategy for supporting those communities which will be most impacted by these changes. This is especially important given the Government’s commitment to a Just Transition as part of the Paris Agreement. (Paragraph 53) Green finance to support green decarbonisation

The Government has recognised that private finance will need to play a key part in funding the transition to net zero. If it is to do so, the Government will need to provide long-term certainty in climate-related policy and must ensure that consistent policy signals are sent to investors. We are encouraged that the Government acknowledged these needs in the 2021 Budget. (Paragraph 59) Net zero and the Future of Green Finance 53

We welcome the announcement in the 2021 Budget of a timetable for the issuance of the UK’s first green sovereign bond or ‘green gilt’. However, the UK is lagging behind other countries in the issuance of these green bonds. This runs the risk of holding back the development of a private sterling green bond market. Although concerns about the potential for green bonds to be a more expensive form of debt for the Government seem to have dissipated to a degree, the Government should none the less set out its tolerance, when issuing such bonds, for them to be more expensive than other forms of Government debt.

We note the new remit provided to the Monetary Policy Committee, which will allow it to rebalance its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme to take account of the climate impact of the bonds it holds. We will continue to scrutinise this process and will examine how any changes are enacted, and how those changes impact on the other policy objectives and the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee.

We note the debate at the Productive Finance Working Group Steering Committee on retail access to the ‘long term asset fund’ (LTAF). There should be clarity about who will have access to the LTAF. The Chancellor and the financial regulators should set out the timeframe for the launch of the announced ‘long term asset fund’ to allow pension savers to invest in long-term projects. We would expect that such an LTAF would be focused on providing a net-zero compliant product.

The Treasury should, as part of its review of Solvency II, consider reforms that could improve the funding of sustainable green infrastructure while maintaining the financial stability of insurers.

In the proposed framework for the new UK Infrastructure Bank, the Chancellor should clarify its governance arrangements, how investment decisions will be made, and how it will ensure that it attracts sufficient private capital. In particular, it should clearly set out how the Bank will meet the Government’s commitment to Net Zero. The Government should also set out how it will incorporate lessons learned from the former Green Investment Bank, and whether it intends that the UK Infrastructure Bank should be funded to offer a lending facility at a level similar to that offered by the European Investment Bank before the UK referendum on membership of the EU. (Paragraph 95) The role of consumers

There is a high level of inertia amongst consumers around defined contribution pension fund choice, with most remaining in the ‘default’ fund. The Treasury has been robust in its view that default funds should not be required to move to more green alternatives, but at the same time maintains that consumers should not have to switch out of the default fund to invest sustainably. The Government should resolve this apparent contradiction. At present the Treasury is relying on a blend of disclosure, regulation and public investment to foster a transition towards more sustainable investment. For now, we support that approach, but the Treasury should report regularly on the proportion of pension holders in defined contribution pension schemes who remain in the default fund, and the extent to which those default funds are aligned with a path to Net Zero. (Paragraph 108) 54 Net zero and the Future of Green Finance

Consumers who hold defined benefits pensions have no choice as to how their assets are allocated. They rely upon their trustees. We note that previous attempts to get defined benefit schemes to acknowledge Environmental Social and Governance concerns have not been entirely successful. In its phased approach to implementing the regulations, the Pensions Regulator will need to consider how to reach smaller pension schemes. The draft regulations appear to exclude the smallest trust schemes. However, when their effects are aggregated, they may still have an impact on meeting the net zero target. In responding to this Report, the Government should set out how these smaller funds will be encouraged to integrate climate governance and reporting requirements.

The financial services industry broadly accepts that ‘greenwashing’ is detrimental to good consumer outcomes and to the achievement of the net zero goal. The Treasury must work with the FCA to ensure that the regulator has the appropriate remit, powers and priorities, and uses its powers, to prevent ‘greenwashing’ of financial products available to consumers.

Financial products should be clearly labelled to allow consumers to assess the relative climate impacts of products and to make choices accordingly. However, allowing every firm to create its own consumer sustainability labels may lead to inconsistencies and consumer confusion. The Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority should consult on the merits of making climate or carbon labels for consumer financial products mandatory, as a means to encourage innovation. The FCA should consult on how best to make such labels readily and widely understood.

We note the concerns expressed about indices, in that the most popular may be carbon-intensive, and those that purport to be green may have carbon-intensive constituents. The risk remains that many consumers are unaware of the carbon- intensity of the indices that their passive investments are tracking. The Treasury and regulators should therefore ensure that all indices (whether conventional or climate- friendly) clearly set out the overall carbon footprint of the assets included within indices.

On the concerns around the constituents of indices described as ‘green’, we note the requirements under the Benchmarks Regulation, which should be used to help consumers make better choices. However, it is clear that in some cases the labels or descriptions of ‘green’ or ‘climate-related’ indices do not necessarily match legitimate consumer expectations of what they would commonly be understood to mean. The Treasury and FCA should review the provisions in the legislative and regulatory framework and ensure that the labels and descriptions of indices accurately reflect their content, in line with consumer expectations.

The Government’s Green Finance Strategy noted the need for innovation in green finance products and services, yet the evidence we have received suggests that the pace of innovation could be accelerated and that more could be done to encourage take-up. The Financial Conduct Authority should seriously consider undertaking further “green fintech challenges” to encourage innovation. The regulator should also set out how it will tackle remaining regulatory barriers which discourage innovative ‘green’ financial products from coming to market. The Government and the regulators Net zero and the Future of Green Finance 55 should work more closely with the Green Finance Institute to bring innovative ideas which will benefit consumers to the market.

The Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority should move quickly to incorporate their revised remits to include climate change. We will continue to monitor their progress and ongoing approach to the risks arising from climate change.

We have heard differing evidence on whether there should be amendments to the capital regimes to promote net zero. In light of its new remit letter, the Bank of England must now explain its thinking, as to what measures it might consider appropriate for the capital regime to better accommodate the climate risk associated with different investments. It should set out its views on the options for amending the capital regimes to reflect its new remit, taking into account the potential interaction with the other aims of prudential policy.

The Government has moved from a voluntary to a mandatory approach for ensuring that firms make climate-related financial disclosures. But the process will be run to different timetables for different firms, across different regulators according to the Roadmap published by the Joint Government Regulator TCFD Taskforce. The Treasury, via the Taskforce, will need to play a key role in ensuring that pressure is maintained for a consistent and rapid implementation of these disclosures.

We also draw the Treasury’s attention to evidence suggesting that the disclosure regime could be widened in scope, and that firms might usefully offer fuller disclosures.

A taxonomy is an important part of identifying what can be considered green investment, so the announcement of a UK taxonomy is welcome. The Treasury and regulators should work at speed to ensure that there is a clear timetable and legislative pathway to deliver a UK taxonomy ahead of COP26 in November 2021. The UK can utilise the EU’s taxonomy but can exceed it when it will assist the UK’s goals. The UK should seize the opportunity presented by COP26 to use its own work on a taxonomy to push for greater international convergence. (Paragraph 192) 56 Net zero and the Future of Green Finance