Following the Daily Telegraph‘s front-page story about Nigel Farage and his bank accounts, there is a lot of egg on a lot faces. Whoever were the sources who decided to tell the press that Coutts shuttered his accounts on strictly financial criteria, they appear to have forgotten about subject access requests.
There is no need here to rehash why it is grossly improper for banks to be able to deny people access to services for their political views; we looked at that case in detail a couple of weeks ago.
But these revelations lend fresh urgency to the problem. With the clock ticking until the next election, it is essential that the Government gets to grips with this now; ensuring right-wingers aren’t discriminated against by progressive corporations is unlikely to be at the top of Labour’s priority list.
Treasury sources confirm the Telegraph‘s reporting that the department is looking seriously about toughening the rules. Possible measures include mandating that banks provide a clear reason for closures (as they manifestly have not in Farage’s case) and longer notice periods, to give affected customers more time to seek redress.
Principle Six in the Financial Conduct Authority’s handbook, meanwhile, reads that: “A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.” There may be scope for refining what this means.
Andrew Griffith, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, also tweeted today that “he privilege of a banking licence in a democracy should imply a duty not to ‘debank’ because you disagree with someone’s views”, suggesting another possible vector for regulatory tightening.
The devil, however, will be in the detail. Coutts, and some of those still defending its decision, drew a distinction between politics and values. The Telegraph quotes the minutes of a meeting:
“The committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose.”
To those who don’t share the values of Coutts’ wealth reputational risk committee, this will sound like nonsense. But the mindset it reflects is real enough; as I noted in my piece this morning about international law, there is a strong progressive tendency to treat an ever-expanding sphere of values as above, or at least beyond, politics.
Any effective regulation would thus need to be drafted extremely tightly, perhaps to the extent of enumerating specific and limited criteria (Griffith mentions “criminal activity”) for denial of service.
If not, the millstone of corporate progressivism will continue to grind, slowly but exceedingly finely. And few who find themselves trapped beneath it will have the profile to jam it as Farage has.