Ex-archbishop of Canterbury urges cathedrals to ditch banks funding fossil fuels
Durham, Southwark, Truro and Worcester Cathedrals said they would move away from banks which fund fossil fuels, joining Chelmsford, Derby and Sheffield Cathedrals, who either already bank with a fossil-free institution, or have committed to switch.
Dr Williams said: 'It is excellent news that so many cathedrals have already signalled their willingness to change to more ethically grounded banking options.
'The public profile and reputation of cathedrals remains high, even in a society that is less openly religious than it was, so the standards of vision and hope that they set matter to everyone.
'It would be wonderful to see more joining in this witness.'
His comments come as green group Christian Climate Action launches a campaign calling on cathedrals and the wider church to move away from Barclays, HSBC, Santander, Natwest and Lloyds because of their ties to fossil fuel firms.
The group has already coordinated vigils and protests outside cathedrals across the UK, including Exeter, Gloucester, Hereford, Bristol and Ripon.
Dr Stephen Edwards, the Dean of Worcester Cathedral, said its declaration of a climate emergency and its Eco Church programme focuses on 'the wider implications of the climate crisis and how we can make a difference across the Cathedral's activity'.
'We began exploring alternative banking arrangements last year and are working to seek the best ethical and sustainable approach to financial processes.
'In doing so we live out our values as a Christian organisation proclaiming the Kingdom of God.'
It comes as part of a wider trend of organisations moving to greener banks, such as The Cooperative Bank, Nationwide, Starling and Triodos.
Adam Durrant, campaign's officer at Make My Money Matter – which campaigns for green finance, said: 'It's fantastic to see even more cathedrals and churches leaving these polluting high street banks.
'They are part of a growing movement demanding better from their money, including universities, charities and medical institutions.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
UK regulator drops cases against Libor scandal traders after court ruling
July 25 (Reuters) - Britain's financial regulator said on Friday that it was dropping proceedings against Tom Hayes and revoking Carlo Palombo's ban from the financial service industry, after the country's top court overturned convictions of both former traders. Hayes, the first trader ever jailed for interest rate rigging, became the face of the global Libor scandal. He challenged his conviction at the Supreme Court, along with Palombo, a former Barclays trader (BARC.L), opens new tab who was found guilty in 2019 of manipulating Euribor, Libor's euro equivalent. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it would take no further action against either individual.
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Rachel Reeves ‘considers overruling' £44billion car finance Supreme Court decision in DAYS
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves may step in to overrule the Supreme Court's decision relating to the £44billion car finance scandal. The Supreme Court is set to decide next Friday whether motor finance providers should compensate customers over undisclosed broker commission arrangements. 1 But, the Government is looking at new laws to limit compensation claims against motor finance providers and making them less exposed to the scandal, according to The Guardian. These laws would set clear rules on disclosing broker commission fees and could even apply retroactively to existing cases. If passed, lenders like Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, and Close Brothers could face lower payouts. The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans. The move would be an exceptional step by the Treasury, which previously attempted to influence the Supreme Court proceedings in January. It's believed Government officials have been discussing the practicalities with both the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business and Trade. In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that motor finance firms broke the law by not telling borrowers about broker commission terms. This decision could lead to £44billion in compensation for millions of people. Motor finance companies argue they believed their practices followed the rules but say the ruling requires much more transparency. Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court heard the case in April. The court will now announce its final decision on motor finance commissions on August 1. The Financing and Leasing Association, which represents motor finance companies, warns that if the Court of Appeal ruling is upheld, it could harm the motor finance market. They say it could lead to less lending, higher borrowing costs, and even company closures. The Government rarely steps in on compensation cases, but the Treasury is worried this scandal could scare off investors and hurt UK businesses. There are also fears that a huge compensation bill could damage the industry. Back in 2013, the coalition Government pushed through the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act to "protect the national economy" from a £130million payout. A Treasury spokesperson said they want a fair decision that gives consumers proper compensation for their losses. They added: "We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles. "It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course." Paul Carlier, the whistleblower who first exposed the scheme in 2016, has accused the Treasury of acting dishonestly to protect motor finance firms at the expense of millions of customers. He claims the FCA and Ombudsman have already covered up the scandal in previous years, depriving consumers of billions in redress. Andy Agathangelou, founder of consumer advocacy group Transparency Task Force said: "This is at least the second time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hoped to intervene, or should I say interfere, with the judicial process surrounding the car finance scandal. "It's not a good look for her, because she seems happy to in effect take money out of the pockets of innocent, harmed consumers, and put it in the pockets of banks and car finance companies that have broken the law." The Financial Ombudsman Service is struggling with a massive spike in complaints about commission practices, now totalling over 60,000 – triple the number since May 2024. The growing scandal could rival the infamous Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) debacle. In March, the Financial Conduct Authority confirmed it had been granted permission to intervene in the case and had submitted its arguments to the Court. Should the Supreme Court rule that motor finance customers have suffered losses as a result of widespread failings by firms, the FCA is expected to consult on the introduction of an industry-wide compensation scheme. Under a redress scheme, firms would need to figure out if their mistakes caused customers to lose money. If they did, the firms would have to pay the right amount of compensation. The FCA would create rules for firms to follow and make sure they stick to them. This scheme would make things easier for customers compared to making a formal complaint. While waiting for news on the redress scheme, customers can still make a claim directly, but the FCA has advised against using claims management companies or law firms to avoid unnecessary fees. WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHO'S AFFECTED? By James Flanders, Chief Consumer Reporter What is being investigated? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) launched an investigation last year into whether motorists were unknowingly overcharged when they took out car loans. The investigation by the City watchdog focuses on past practices where banks allowed car dealerships and brokers to set their own interest rates on loans. Under a now-banned discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), dealerships and brokers had a financial incentive to charge higher interest rates, as their commission increased proportionally. However, many customers were unaware of this practice. A landmark ruling in October 2024, deemed it unlawful for car dealers, acting as brokers, to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer's consent. This applied to both discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where dealers set interest rates, and non-discretionary commissions. The Supreme Court is now preparing to rule on whether lenders should be held responsible for compensating drivers. Who is eligible for compensation? There are two criteria you must meet to have a chance at receiving compensation. First, you must be complaining about a finance deal on a motor vehicle (including cars, vans, motorbikes, and motorhomes) that was agreed upon before January 28, 2021. Second, you must have bought the vehicle through a mechanism like Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP), which make up the majority of finance deals and mean you own the vehicle at the end of the agreement. Drivers who leased a car through a Personal Contract Hire, where you give the car back at the end of the lease, are not eligible. According to the financial regulator, on a typical £10,000 motor finance agreement, discretionary commission arrangements could have caused customers to pay an additional £1,100 in interest over a four-year term. The FCA extended the deadline for lenders to respond to complaints, meaning borrowers whose lenders received other forms of commission may now also be eligible for compensation. How can I make a claim now? Consumer finance website offers an email template to help you complain to your finance provider. You can download this by visiting Alternatively, you can complain directly without using the template. It's crucial for anyone who took out car finance to file a claim, even if a previous claim was denied. In your complaint, ask whether you were overcharged due to your broker receiving a commission and request the company to rectify this if it occurred. If you're unsatisfied with the company's response, you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) at no cost. You have until July 29, 2026, or up to 15 months from the date of the company's final response letter, whichever is longer. Avoid using a claims management firm, as they will take a portion of any successful claim. CUSTOMERS of several major high street banks who were mis-sold car finance could be in line to receive thousands of pounds in redress. In March, Lloyds Banking Group revealed it had set aside another £700million for potential compensation relating to motor finance commission arrangements this morning. The bank said the provision – taken in the fourth quarter, and adding to the £450million provision taken last year – was in light of a court judgment on the issue. Barclays has additionally allocated £90million in response to the car finance scandal, while Santander revealed last year that it had earmarked £295million for potential payouts. Meanwhile, Close Brothers announced it anticipates setting aside up to £165million in the first half of the year to address potential legal and compensation costs arising from the ongoing review into car loan commissions.
Times
a day ago
- Times
FCA finalises ban on ex-Barclays boss Jes Staley over Epstein links
The City regulator has finally banned Jes Staley from holding top jobs in financial services after the former Barclays boss threw in the towel in his fight with the watchdog over his links to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Staley, 68, took the Financial Conduct Authority to court to overturn its plan to ban him but failed to clear his name, as the Upper Tribunal last month sided with the regulator and ruled that Staley's conduct had amounted to 'a serious failure of judgment'. He had the option to try to appeal against the court's decision but the deadline to seek permission to fight on passed earlier this month. As a result, the FCA this week published its final notice, which implements the prohibition on Staley holding senior management roles in the industry that the regulator first proposed more than two years ago. It also formally imposes a £1.1 million fine on the former bank boss, which he must pay by August 6. The FCA had originally planned a £1.8 million penalty but the court reduced this to take account of deferred shares from Barclays that Staley had subsequently been forced to relinquish because of the controversy. It brings to an end a legal battle that engrossed the City of London and Wall Street, where Staley, an American, was also once a big player. During the trial this year, the Upper Tribunal heard how Staley had told Epstein they had a 'profound' friendship and had referred to the sex offender as 'uncle Jeffrey' in an email to one of his daughters. Under cross-examination by the FCA's barrister, Staley, who is married, also told the court that he had once slept with a member of Epstein's staff. Staley had worked for most of his career at JPMorgan Chase and it was while running its private bank that he came to know Epstein, a financier who was a client of the division. In 2015 Staley became one of the most influential figures in British finance when he took charge of Barclays, the FTSE 100 bank he ran until 2021. After Epstein died in a US prison cell in 2019 awaiting trial on charges of sex-trafficking minors, the FCA asked Barclays about the nature of Staley's relationship with him. The resulting letter from the bank was at the heart of Staley's courtroom battle with the regulator. In it, the bank said that Staley 'did not have a close relationship' with Epstein and that his last contact with the paedophile was 'well before he joined Barclays'. These statements, which were approved by Staley, were misleading, according to the FCA, which said the former Barclays boss had 'acted with a lack of integrity'. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the regulator's findings. The FCA did not allege that Staley was involved in Epstein's crimes. • Jean-Noel Alba, who was previously deputy chief executive of the asset manager H20, has been banned from working in financial services and fined more than £1 million by the City regulator. The Financial Conduct Authority said he had misled it during an investigation into H20, including by asking junior colleagues to create minutes of meetings that had not occurred and by drawing up due diligence research on investments years after those investments had actually been made.
