The head of NatWest has apologised to Nigel Farage for its “deeply inappropriate comments” about him as the government cracks down on banks to protect freedom of expression.
Dame Alison Rose, the NatWest chief executive, wrote to the former leader of the UK Independence Party (Ukip), stating that comments made in a 40-page dossier — compiled by Coutts, which is owned by NatWest — “do not reflect the view of the bank”.
She claimed it was not the policy of the bank to “exit” a customer and reiterated that he could have a NatWest account, but stopped short of offering him his Coutts accounts back.
Rose insisted she believed “very strongly” in freedom of expression, but Farage hit back and claimed her apology had been forced by the Treasury.
Faced with increasing pressure, Rose moved on Thursday to stem the tide of criticism of NatWest Group over its treatment of Farage. It emerged this week that Coutts decided to close his accounts because his views did not “align with our values”.
The dossier on the Brexit campaigner, which he acquired using a subject access request, had dredged up long-denied claims that he sang Hitler Youth songs as a schoolboy, claimed he had retweeted transphobic jokes and lied about Brexit.
• Coutts v Nigel Farage: the full dossier and key points
Rose said on Thursday: “I am writing to apologise for the deeply inappropriate comments about yourself made in the now published papers prepared for the Wealth Committee. I would like to make it clear that they do not reflect the view of the bank.
“I believe very strongly that freedom of expression and access to banking are fundamental to our society and it is absolutely not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views.”
The Times can also reveal that Coutts changed the terms under which customers can have their accounts closed in 2021 to include discrimination, following an equality report championed by Rose.
On Thursday Rose promised a “full review of the Coutts processes” in respect of how bank closures are made and communicated to “ensure we provide better, clearer and more consistent” customer experiences.
She added: “I fully understand yours and the public’s concern that the processes for bank account closure are not sufficiently transparent. Customers have a right to expect their bank to make consistent decisions against publicly available criteria and those decisions should be communicated clearly and openly with them, within the constraints imposed by law.
“To achieve this, sector-wide change is required, but your experience, highlighted in recent days, has shown we need to also put our own processes under scrutiny too.”
In a separate statement Rose said a decision to close an account was “not taken lightly” and was based on factors including “commercial viability, reputational considerations and legal and regulatory requirements”.
Of Farage’s dossier, she added: “No individual should have to read such comments and I apologise to Mr Farage for this. I have written to him today to make that apology and reiterate our offer of alternative banking arrangements.”
Farage, addressing a live audience on his GB News show, thanked Rose for her apology but claimed she had been forced into it by the Treasury.
He said: “In life, it’s always good to get an apology so thank you, Dame Alison for apologising, but I can’t help feeling that the Treasury statement preceded what you put out. What I’ve been told privately is that you were forced into doing this by the Treasury. The whole letter smacks of ‘Not me, guv, I’m just the chief executive, don’t blame me for what the banks under my direct control are doing.’ ”
He added: “The reaction from the Conservative government on this, if not much else, has been pretty extraordinary and very, very rapid. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it must be respected by all institutions.”
He said that he had put in another subject access request to NatWest, asking for correspondence about his case.
Measures to keep politics out of banking
The Treasury has said that banks will be forced to explain and delay any decision to close an account under new rules to combat closures over political beliefs.
The changes will increase the notice period banks have to offer to 90 days, giving customers more time to challenge a decision through the Financial Ombudsman Service or find a replacement bank.
Banks will also be required to spell out why they are terminating a bank account in an effort to boost transparency and aid customer efforts to overturn decisions.
The changes were made due to new powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which the government said gave Britain control of its financial rulebook following Brexit.
Andrew Griffith, economic secretary to the Treasury, said: “Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it must be respected by all institutions. Banks occupy a privileged place in society, and it is right that we fairly balance the rights of banks to act in their commercial interest, with the right for everyone to express themselves freely.
“These changes will boost the rights of customers — providing real transparency, time to appeal and making it a much fairer playing field.”
The proposed changes follow a call for evidence launched in January, following PayPal’s temporary suspension of several accounts last year, including that of the free speech campaigner Toby Young.
The government also has separate plans to clarify in legislation the requirements for politically exposed persons (PEPs) and a review into whether these are being applied proportionately by banks.
