On 26 June the House of Commons considered the version of the FSM Bill returned to it from the House of Lords. It published its views on aspects of the Bill where it disagrees with Lords changes. While there was significant discussion and debate on PEPs, access to cash, and regulatory accountability, the key areas in which the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendments and submitted its reasons are:
- a proposal to reformulate the requirements proposed in the Lords to have in mind the need to contribute to climate objectives;
- that the Commons disagrees with the Lords’ inclusion of “financial inclusion” under the consumer protection objective, on the basis that FCA can already take action on issues related to financial inclusion and to include it within its objectives without consultation would create uncertainty for regulated entities;
- to reformulate the Lords’ proposed addition on activities relating to forest risk commodities, so as, instead of imposing immediate requirements in the law, the Bill would require Treasury to review the adequacy of the regulatory system to be able to eliminate the financing of the use of banned forest risk commodities and then publish a report with conclusions for improving the effectiveness of regulation in this area.