Farage explores criminal claim over NatWest debanking
Sky News has learnt that Mr Farage has instructed Chris Daw KC of Lincoln House Chambers to examine whether there are grounds for bringing a criminal case against the high street banking giant.
The move appears to be deliberately timed to coincide with the publication of NatWest's annual results on Friday morning, which will come just weeks before the government is expected to sell its last-remaining shares in the company, nearly 17 years after its £45.5bn taxpayer bailout.
Mr Farage confirmed to Sky News on Thursday evening that Grosvenor Law, which is acting for him in separate civil proceedings against the bank, had instructed Mr Daw KC to explore a private criminal prosecution, adding: "This is unfinished business."
Dan Morrison, a partner at Grosvenor Law, said in a separate statement: "Mr Farage is concerned about possible criminal issues arising out of the bank's conduct.
"We do not wish to provide further details.
"We have therefore decided to instruct leading criminal counsel."
The debanking furore which claimed the scalp of Dame Alison Rose, NatWest's former chief executive, in the summer of 2023 centred on whether the bank's Coutts subsidiary decided to close Mr Farage's accounts for commercial or political reasons.
NatWest initially claimed the motivation was commercial before Mr Farage obtained internal evidence from the bank suggesting that his politics had been a pivotal factor in the decision.
It sparked a firestorm under the then Conservative government, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the then prime minister and chancellor respectively, indicating to NatWest's board that they had lost faith in Dame Alison's ability to lead the bank.
Since then, the City watchdog has instructed banks and other financial firms to do more to ensure that parliamentarians, senior public servants and their families - known as politically exposed persons, or PEPs - are not treated unfairly.
Mr Farage's decision to hire Mr Daw KC threatens a fresh escalation against one of Britain's biggest banks at a time when some argue that he has become the country's most influential politician.
He led Reform to a handful of seats at last year's general election, while his party finished in second place in scores of other constituencies.
The Reform leader's close ties to Donald Trump, inaugurated last month for the second time as US President, have fuelled the sense that he may play an even more crucial role in shaping the identity of Britain's next government when the country goes to the polls in 2029.
A recent opinion poll for Sky News by YouGov put Reform ahead of both Labour and the Tories for the first time.
Since the summer of 2023, tentative discussions between Mr Farage's legal representatives and NatWest about a possible settlement have failed to result in any financial agreement.
Mr Farage was expected to seek millions of pounds from the company, alleging that the debanking row had damaged his reputation.
Despite the threat of a fresh legal barrage from Mr Farage, NatWest - now run by Paul Thwaite - is in its most robust financial health for decades.
The government's stake in the bank is now below 8%, and a full exit is expected during the spring.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer urged to drop 'toxic' NIMBY term by Labour MPs
In recent months Keir Startmer has vowed to take on 'the NIMBYs' to get spades in the ground of major infastructure projects and deliver on promise to build 1.5million new homes Keir Starmer should drop the "toxic" term NIMBY for those who rally against developments in their own area, a group of Labour MPs have suggested. In recent months the PM has vowed to take on "the NIMBYs" - an acronym which stands for 'not in my back yard' - to get spades in the ground of major infrastructure projects. But Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, the Labour MP who chairs the Labour Rural Research Group, told The Mirror"many people rightly despise the term". "The term NIMBY isn't just toxic, it's politically pointless. We win nothing by labelling people 'anti development' or 'anti growth'," she added. It comes after The Mirror's Kevin Maguire wrote: 'Labour must find engaging story for the UK - or face election wipeout'. The group of 26 Labour backbenchers Labour Rural Research Group - set up to champion rural issues - have published their first report today on the attitudes of their countryside constituents. Their survey of 1,412 people found 56% "firmly do not see themselves as NIMBYs". Over 60% also agreed developments in their areas should go ahead "as long as it is delivered thoughtfully, and with consideration for local needs and identity". The report says: "The rhetoric in today's political world and media, which tends to focus on dividing lines, often pits rural against urban, and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) against YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard). YIMBYs are often presented (in the media at least) as proud urban voters, whilst NIMBYs are seen as people living in rural or semi-rural communities." It also found almost three quarters believe rural communities have been overlooked over the past 15 years. And three in five feel their communities are in decline. The MPs' report said: "We must ensure that rural communities, left behind by successive Conservative governments, are front and centre of the Labour government's mission for inclusive growth and opportunity." Ms Riddell-Carpenter, who overturned ex-Tory Deputy PM Therese Coffey's massive majority in the Suffolk Coastal constituency last year, added: "Our report shows – in black and white – rural voters do not see themselves as NIMBYs, in fact many people rightly despise the term." She added: "They are rightly proud of, and ambitious for, their local area - they want to see new jobs, more affordable homes, and better opportunities for young people. We need to make sure that growth and development in rural areas matches this strong local identity, and that we put forward proposals that local people can be proud of in their back yard." A Labour source told The Mirror: 'Labour was elected to deliver change. We are proud of our ambition to create a fairer Britain. Working families don't feel that sense of fairness yet. People work hard and deserve a secure place to call home for them and their loved ones. 'Through our Plan for Change, Labour will unashamedly deliver on that promise. We'll build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, and create the infrastructure that gets them to work more quickly and seen by a doctor more swiftly.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Should former party leaders keep their noses out of politics?
The political phenomenon of the 'back-seat driver' is hardly new, but it's a bit of a thing at the moment. Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Jeremy Corbyn have all been giving Keir Starmer private and public advice about taxation, welfare reform, the general conduct of government, and, in Corbyn's case, even about local authorities selling off allotments. It's meant to be helpful (maybe not in the case of Starmer's immediate predecessor), but it doesn't always work out that way... What's their problem? On the whole, and crudely speaking, they think that Starmer isn't really left-wing enough, which is ironic because they too (excepting Corbyn) were often criticised for just that in their own time. Most recently, Kinnock has backed a 'wealth tax' (never a prominent part of Labour policy during his own leadership), and wants to apply VAT to private healthcare charges (supposedly analogous to private school fees). Brown doesn't, but he does think child poverty is an under-regarded problem and that the winter fuel allowance, which he introduced, needs to be restored. Tony Blair has been pushing digital ID hard, just as he did when he was in No 10, when he never quite managed to make compulsory ID cards acceptable. More critically, Blair is supposed to have told Starmer that 'this isn't working' in a wider sense, and that net zero is 'doomed to fail' (a point he later rowed back on). Were he not already in Starmer's cabinet, Ed Miliband would also be outspoken about the downgrading of his Green New Deal. Are they right? Probably, but they do enjoy the luxury of observerdom, no longer living in fear of their own MPs, financial markets and, of course, Britain's devoutly cakeist electorate. They, and we, cannot assume they'd be doing a better job, notwithstanding their experience. Even so, if Starmer metaphorically says 'Well, you try it' – running the party, government, or both – they can reply, 'Well, we did, mate.' Why does this happen? They miss the attention? Former party leaders and prime ministers – deprived, usually forcibly, of their former power and status – are sometimes unable to resist the temptation to advise and warn their successors, not least when their own policies and record are under attack (whether real or imagined). Margaret Thatcher, conscious that such interventions can be unhelpful, actually promised after she left office in 1990 (and most unwillingly) to be a 'good back-seat driver'. John Major and, to a lesser degree, William Hague would beg to differ about what that meant. Thatcher more or less inflicted on them what Ted Heath, whom she ousted, visited on her during her premiership – constant barracking, grumbling and plotting. Harold Macmillan, who'd left No 10 even longer ago, also chose to criticise her harsh economic policies in the 1980s. Kinnock, in a backhanded way, said of Blair in 2007 that 'he's a bastard, but he's our bastard'. James Callaghan, who was in the merchant navy as a young man in the war, and was most restrained towards his heirs, said this of former leaders: 'Don't distract the man at the wheel, and don't spit on the deck.' Aside from one remark, and a subsequent indecorous row with John Prescott in the Commons tea room about nuclear disarmament, Callaghan followed his own advice. Why is there so much of this now? On the Conservative side, it is largely a function of the growing population of ex-leaders – nine in all (from Major to Rishi Sunak), of whom six served as prime minister. They've usually been the more bitter critics of one another, with the Liz Truss-Kemi Badenoch spats currently being the most entertaining, and serious, because the very word 'Truss' terrifies the voters, but attempts to slap her down make the Tories look divided. It's only fair to add that John Major, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Sunak are being remarkably restrained as Badenoch continually trashes their reputations. Labour has far fewer extant former prime ministers, and fewer former leaders. In addition, they tend to be more polite, and the most potent dissident among them, Corbyn, is now outside the family. The problem comes if they start to become the focus for rebellions, and make the Labour Party look even more divided than it actually is. None, however – not even Corbyn – can match Truss for high-profile delusion.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Tax gambling industry more to lift 500,000 children out of poverty, government urged
Around half a million children could be lifted out of poverty through reforms to UK gambling laws, a leading think tank has found. The Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR) is urging the government to look at measures which could raise £3.2 billion from changes to how gambling is taxed. This would be the amount of funding needed to scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, a new report from the group finds, which would lift 500,000 children out of poverty. Eliminating these two policies would be 'the most effective single step' the government could take to reduce child poverty, it adds. Backed by former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, the IPPR's proposals focus on raising duties on online gambling firms, especially online casinos, slot machines, and high-stakes betting. The think tank says harms are especially concentrated in this sector, with over 60 per cent of profits coming from just five per cent of users – many of whom are vulnerable. Henry Parkes, principal economist and head of quantitative research at IPPR, said: 'The gambling industry is highly profitable, yet is exempt from paying VAT and often pays no corporation tax, with many online firms based offshore. 'It is also inescapable that gambling causes serious harm, especially in its most high-stakes forms. Set against a context of stark and rising levels of child poverty, it only feels fair to ask this industry to contribute a little more.' The findings come as the chancellor is under pressure to raises taxes at Labour's upcoming autumn budget to address poor economic performance. The government is facing an 'impossible trilemma' caused by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth, economists from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said on Wednesday. Its economists say the chancellor must look to raise £51.1 billion at her upcoming fiscal event, arguing that both tax rises and spending cuts will be necessary to deliver the funds. Treasury officials are reportedly already considering ways to raise taxes on the gambling sector, including simplifying the varying rates of duty applied to gambling products. Lobbyists for the gambling industry have begun pushing back on these proposals, reports The Guardian, with representatives understood to have already outlined their objections to the Treasury and have reached out to Labour MPs and staff. Lending his support the the IPPR's recommendations, Gordon Brown said: 'There are many reasons why the highly profitable betting and gaming industry should pay a fairer share towards the cost of UK's unmet needs. Most important is that it would enable half a million children to be lifted out of poverty in this autumn's budget, and so help to build our country for the next generation.'
