A HOME Office minister has said it should be “completely unacceptable” for banks to close the accounts of public figures on “political grounds” after Nigel Farage claimed he was facing discrimination from UK banks.
The GB News presenter and former Ukip leader announced last week that his bank of more than 30 years had closed his account and that other banks he had approached had all rejected his custom.
According to Farage, the bank said it had been a “commercial decision” to close his account.
However, the prominent Brexiteer said he believed that banking laws around Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) were to blame for his situation.
READ MORE: Care home choking death in Greenock to face fatal accident inquiry
The Financial Action Task Force, a global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, defines Politically Exposed Persons as individuals who undertake a “prominent public function” and are therefore considered “high-risk” by financial institutions.
In many places, including the EU and the UK, their accounts are subject to additional anti-money laundering measures due to their potential involvement in bribery or corruption.
However, security minister and former Conservative leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat said it was “completely unacceptable” for banks to treat political figures in the manner Farage alleged.
“PEP is there to prevent the corrupt use of banking facilities by politicians in corrupt regimes,” said Tugendhat. “It is not here to silence individuals who may hold views with which we may or may not agree.
“Such a closure on political grounds, if that is indeed what has happened – after all, we have only the allegation of it at this point – should, therefore, be completely unacceptable.”
READ MORE: Neil Gray calls on UK Government to scrap ‘abhorrent’ Strikes Bill
The Treasury also confirmed that it was presently reviewing whether banks were blacklisting customers with controversial political views from opening or maintaining accounts.
A Treasury spokesperson said: “It would be a serious concern if financial services were being denied to those exercising the right to lawful free speech.
“We are already looking into this issue and have passed a law that requires the FCA to review how banks treat politically exposed persons – so we can strike the right balance between the customer’s right to free speech and the bank’s right to manage commercial risk.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel