Bank bosses have made a commitment to free speech, according to the government, in the wake of the Nigel Farage de-banking row that claimed the scalp of NatWest chief executive Dame Alison Rose.
On Wednesday afternoon the Information Commissioner’s Office announced it has written to banks to remind them of their “responsibility to the public”.
“Banks should not be holding inaccurate information, they should not be using information in a way that is unduly unexpected, and they should not be holding any more information than is necessary,” the Information Commissioner John Edwards said.
Dame Alison’s four-year tenure as chief executive ended in ignominy last night following her admission that she had discussed Mr Farage’s bank details with a BBC journalist, suggesting too that his account at the bank’s Coutts division had been closed only for commercial, rather than any political, reasons.
“Any suggestion that this trust has been betrayed will be concerning for a bank’s customers, and for regulators like myself,” Mr Edwards said.
Number 10 said Dame Alison had “done the right thing” by resigning and confirmed she was no longer a member of the prime minister’s business council. She has also left two roles she had with the department for energy after the secretary of state asked her to step down from both positions.
Treasury minister Andrew Griffith met 19 bank bosses for a summit on Wednesday to discuss concerns other figures, not just Mr Farage, were being denied access to banking due to their politics or perceived beliefs.
Mr Griffith said afterwards: “It’s not the job of banks to tell us what to think, or what political party we should support.
“The government’s been extremely clear on this, in a democracy that relies upon freedom of expression… that is not a legitimate thing for a bank to remove someone’s access to a bank account.”
A readout of the meeting’s conclusions suggested the industry had agreed to work with government and regulators on the implementation of new rules aimed at strengthening protections on account terminations or access to accounts.
“Attendees from the sector acknowledged that recent events had impacted upon public trust for the whole sector and expressed their clear commitment to government policy on account closure and to act quickly to restore confidence,” the document said.
Mr Farage told Sky News “the whole board needs to go” at NatWest following the resignation of Dame Alison.
The former Brexit campaigner said Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the NatWest Group, had continued to endorse Dame Alison even after it emerged she was the person who had leaked to the BBC.
Sky’s City editor Mark Kleinman suggested it was unlikely Sir Howard would follow her out of the bank despite intense pressure on his own position, saying it could even be prolonged beyond his planned departure next year given the search for Dame Alison’s successor and the need for stability at the top of the bank.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:23
‘Not necessary’ for entire NatWest board to go
“The first rule of banking is you have to obey client confidentiality. So they have made a complete and utter mess of this,” Mr Farage said, adding he had not decided whether he will seek compensation and the row over his account closure has “absorbed my life for many months”.
He said a subject access request from the NatWest Group revealed his account was “commercially viable” and its closure was a “political decision”.
The former UKIP leader also said he hadn’t been able to open another bank account and claimed he has been turned down by 10 banks.
Mr Farage also claimed he has been “approached by literally thousands of people all over this country that have been unfairly closed down by NatWest”.
NatWest’s shares were down by 4% following the news of Dame Alison’s resignation and were leading the fallers on the FTSE 100.
Image: Dame Alison had held her position as NatWest Group chief executive for four years
Mr Griffith earlier tweeted it is “right that the NatWest CEO has resigned”.
He added: “This would never have happened if NatWest had not taken it upon itself to withdraw a bank account due to someone’s lawful political views. That was and is always unacceptable.”
NatWest chairman says resignation is a ‘sad moment’
Sir Howard said earlier the board and Dame Alison agreed by “mutual consent” that she would step down from her role.
He said it was a “sad moment” and that Dame Alison has “dedicated all her working life so far to NatWest”.
In a statement, Dame Alison said: “I remain immensely proud of the progress the bank has made in supporting people, families and business across the UK, and building the foundations for sustainable growth.
“My NatWest colleagues are central to that success, and so I would like to personally thank them for all that they have done.”
The resignation was expected in the wake of briefings by Downing Street that she had lost the confidence of the prime minister and chancellor
Their concerns were echoed by Mr Farage, who accused the management of Coutts bank – which is owned by NatWest – of a “serious breach” and called Dame Alison’s position “totally untenable”.
The story first came to light when the BBC inaccurately reported Mr Farage’s account was closed as he did not meet Coutts’s financial thresholds.
Documents obtained by Mr Farage subsequently showed his political beliefs and connections formed part of the rationale.
Mr Farage told Sky News he has written to Peter Flavell, head of NatWest’s Coutts unit, “three times” since his account was closed and had not even had the “courtesy of an acknowledgement”.
Dame Alison had said she believed it was public knowledge Mr Farage was a customer of private bank Coutts and had been offered a NatWest account, and so confirmed these details to BBC business editor Simon Jack.
She later called her actions a “serious error of judgement” but reiterated the bank saw the account closure as a commercial decision and she was not part of the decision-making process.
On Monday, the BBC apologised for the report, following earlier apologies from both Coutts and Dame Alison.
Paul Thwaite, the current chief executive of the company’s commercial and institutional business, was announced as an interim chief executive, for an initial period of 12 months, pending regulatory approval.
The board said a process to appoint a permanent successor will take place in due course.
Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama filed companion bills to identical existing bills that if passed into law, would allow each state to buy Bitcoin.
The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced to the state’s House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, following an identical bill introduced on March 17 by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller.
Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bi-partisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw filed the identical House Bill 482, which allows for the state to invest in crypto, but essentially limits it to Bitcoin (BTC).
Twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly name Bitcoin
Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and permit state employees to add crypto to retirement accounts.
It would also exempt crypto gains from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin.
The twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly identify Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment into assets that have a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion that only Bitcoin currently meets.
26 Bitcoin reserve bills now introduced in the US
Introducing identical bills is not uncommon in the US and is typically done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so laws can pass more quickly.
Bills to create a Bitcoin reserve have been introduced in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to make one, according to data from the bill tracking website Bitcoin Laws.
Arizona currently leads in the US state Bitcoin reserve race. Source: Bitcoin Laws
Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill, in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly eventually rejected, with similar bills also killed in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wyoming are the five states thathave rejected Bitcoin reserve initiatives. Source: Bitcoin Laws
According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to the Bitcoin reserve initiatives amid political confrontations between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Update (April 3, 5:43 am UTC): This article has been updated to add information on the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act.
The US House Financial Services Committee has passed a Republican-backed stablecoin framework bill, which will now head to the House floor for a full vote.
The Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32-17 vote on April 2, with six Democrats voting in favor.
The bill was introduced on Feb. 6 by committee Chair French Hill and the chair of its Digital Assets Subcommittee, Bryan Steil — reportedly drafted with the help of the world’s largest stablecoin issue, Tether.
The bill would provide rules around payment stablecoins, a crypto token tied to a currency such as the US dollar, and aims to ensure issuers give information about their business and how they back their tokens.
During an earlier markup session, the committee’s leading Democrat, Maxine Waters, who later voted against the bill, criticized her Republican peers for “setting an unacceptable and dangerous precedent” with the STABLE Act.
She said President Donald Trump could use the bill to allow his family’s stablecoin to be used in government payments, and argued the bill validates Trump “and his insiders’ efforts to write rules of the road that will enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”
In late March, the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto venture launched a stablecoin, World Liberty Financial USD (USD1). Meanwhile, the US Housing Department, which oversees social housing, was reportedly looking to experiment with using stablecoins for some of its functions.
Stablecoin GENIUS Act also weaves through Congress
Other stablecoin-related bills are also working their way through Congress, including the Republican-led Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, which lays out oversight and reserve rules for issuers.
The US Senate Banking Committee voted through the GENIUS Act in an 18-6 vote on March 13, after Senator Bill Hagerty, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, updated it following consultation with the Committee’s Democrats.
Before the vote, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the updated GENIUS Act made “significant improvements to a number of important provisions” in areas such as consumer protections and authorized stablecoin issuers.
Both the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act will now wait until debate time on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, before they head for a floor vote.
Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on X that two unnamed crypto lobbyists said there is likely to be “a coordinated push behind the scenes over the next few weeks to get the two bills to mirror each other, as there are still some differences between them.”
Doing so would “avoid having to set up a so-called conference committee which is formed so members from both chambers can negotiate to create a final version of the bill everyone agrees on,” she added.
Tulip Siddiq has told Sky News her “lawyers are ready” to handle any formal questions about allegations she is involved in corruption in Bangladesh.
Asked whether she regrets apparent links with the Bangladeshi Awami League political party, Ms Siddiq said “why don’t you look at my legal letter and see if I have any questions to answer… [the Bangladeshi authorities] have not once contacted me and I’m waiting to hear from them”.
Lawyers acting for Ms Siddiq wrote to the Bangladeshi Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) several weeks ago saying the allegations were “false and vexatious”.
The letter said the ACC must put questions to Ms Siddiq “by no later than 25 March 2025” or “we shall presume that there are no legitimate questions to answer”.
More on Bangladesh
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:45
Staff from the NCA visited Bangladesh as part of initial work to support the interim government in the country.
In a post online today, the former minister said the deadline had expired and the authorities had not replied.
Sky News has approached the Bangladeshi government for comment.
The allegations against Ms Siddiq are focused on links to her aunt Sheikh Hasina – who served as the prime minister of Bangladesh for 20 years.
She is accused of becoming an autocrat, with politically-motivated arrests, extra-judicial killings and other abuses allegedly happening on her watch. Hasina claims it’s all a political witch hunt.
Ms Siddiq was found to have lived in several London properties that had links back to the Awami League political party that her aunt still leads.
She referred herself to the prime minister’s standards adviser Sir Laurie Magnus who said he had “not identified evidence of improprieties” but added it was “regrettable” Ms Siddiq had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt.
Ms Siddiq said continuing in her role would be “a distraction” for the government but insisted she had done nothing wrong.