Eco-campaigners sue government over RBS investment

A coalition of eco-campaigners are suing the government for giving billions of pounds to “dirty and destructive projects” through its investment in the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

Platform, People & Planet, and the World Development Movement claim that through its recapitalisation of RBS the government is allowing taxpayer funds to be invested in human rights violations and heavily polluting energy companies.

“RBS has the worst record by far of any UK bank when it comes to financing projects around the world which cause environmental damage [and] particularly bad human rights records,” the three groups said.

Having marketed itself as “the oil and gas bank”, RBS loaned more than £100 million to the coal industry in the two years before its bailout.

The campaigners believe the government’s investment in RBS directly contradicts its legislation and policies intended to reduce carbon emissions.

Their court action aims to force RBS to adopt low-carbon investment guidelines, and to invest only in sustainable and ethical businesses.

“The government has spent billions on a bank with a track record of financing energy companies’ dirty and destructive projects,” said Julian Oram, spokesperson for the World Development Movement.

“We’re launching this action because the Treasury has displayed a blatant disregard of the government’s own commitments to tackling climate change and its rules for spending public money.

“The taxpayers’ interests would be vastly better served by RBS investing in a low carbon future than in undemocratic regimes and environmentally devastating projects around the world.”

Ian Leggett, from People & Planet, said: “The government now controls RBS and has an exceptional opportunity to drive investments in low carbon jobs and infrastructure - not to repeat the recklessness of the past.

“If we are to stand a chance of stopping catastrophic climate change, the first priority is to make a clear and irreversible commitment to stop investing in high carbon companies and projects but to prioritise investments in renewable energies.”

In April the Treasury stated “the environmental and human rights records of the individual banks were of no relevance” to its decision on which banks it chose to bail out.

The Treasury made this claim despite the government’s “green book”, which requires it to assess whether new projects promote the public interest.

“The refusal by the Treasury to even consider whether an investment could contribute to climate change or result in human rights abuses is clearly unlawful and completely out of line with the government’s own guidance, policies and targets on these issues”, said Rosa Curling of Leigh Day solicitors, who is representing the campaign groups in court.

“The decisions RBS has taken since recapitalisation have been very harmful,” Curling added.

“It’s the most dark example of how the government’s decision not to consider in any way the human rights and environmental issues is having a really negative effect.”