Nigel Farage has called on MPs to hold an inquiry into NatWest after one of the group’s banks, Coutts, closed his account.
The former UKIP and Brexit Party leader has claimed the elite bank took the action because his views did not align with the firm’s “values”.
But other media reports suggested it was down to his finances not reaching the company’s threshold, and Coutts insistedit did not close accounts “solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views”.
Earlier, the chief executive officer of NatWest, Alison Rose, wrote to Mr Farage offering him an apology, after he claimed to have a 40-page document that proved Coutts “exited” him because he was regarded as “xenophobic and racist” and a former “fascist”.
In the letter, she said “deeply inappropriate comments” had been made about him in documents prepared for the company’s wealth committee, and the remarks “did not reflect the view of the bank”.
She added: “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 bank has now offered “alternative banking arrangements” at NatWest.
More from UK
Speaking to reporters on Thursday night, Mr Farage called the apology “a start, but it is no way near enough”.
“It is always good to get an apology, particularly from somebody running a bank with 19 million customers, so thank you for the apology,” he added. “But it does feel ever so slightly forced.
Advertisement
“It also felt a bit like, ‘not me guv’.”
Image: The apology letter written to Nigel Farage
The letter came as the Treasury announced new stricter measures on banks closing accounts to protect freedom of expression.
The government said the organisations will now have to inform customers of the reasons why they are closing accounts, and extend the notice period from 30 days to 90 – giving customers more time to challenge the decision or find a new bank.
Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Griffith, 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.”
Mr Farage praised the “superb” and “rapid reaction” of the government. But he also claimed his apology from Ms Rose only came about due to pressure from the Treasury.
The now-TV presenter added that wanted to know “what was said at a dinner” between Ms Rose and a BBC journalist.
Sky News has contacted Coutts and Mr Farage for comment.
Asked if he did have enough money to hold an account with Coutts, whose website states clients are “required to maintain at least £1m in investments or borrowing [mortgage], or £3m in savings”, Mr Farage said: “I have been a customer of the group for 43 years, I have been a customer of Coutts since 2014. At no point did anybody say you have to have this amount of money.
“These things are all discretionary [and] they were using this, frankly, as a mask to cover up the truth.
“This is not about money in the account, this is about the fact they don’t like me.”
Asked if he thought Ms Rose should resign, Mr Farage added: “I think rather than just saying right now [Ms Rose] ought to go, I think now what needs to happen is the Treasury Select Committee needs to reconvene, come out of recess, and lets give her the opportunity to tell us the truth.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:31
Farage: ‘I was shocked with the vitriol’
In her letter, Ms Rose said she “fully understands” both Mr Farage’s and the public’s concerns that the processes for bank account closures were not “sufficiently transparent”, adding: “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 the law.”
She agreed that “sector-wide change” was needed but, following the incident with Mr Farage and Coutts, she would now commission a full review of the bank’s processes “to ensure we provide better, clearer and more consistent experience for customers in the future”.
In a further statement released after Sky News broke the story of the letter, Ms Rose reiterated her apology, but added: “It is not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views.
“Decisions to close an account are not taken lightly and involve a number of factors including commercial viability, reputational considerations, and legal and regulatory requirements.”
But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.
It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.
Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.
With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.
Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.
But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.
When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.
There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.
Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.
Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
However, he will continue to be known as a prince.
Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.
He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.
“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”
Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.
Image: Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.
“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”
Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.
Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.
They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.
Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.
Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.
He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:05
Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News
Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.
“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.
Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.
The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.
Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.
In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.
“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”
The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”
Image: Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.
“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.
“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”
They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.
“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.