<\/p>\n
Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey rejected reports of a falling out with Chancellor Rachel Reeves after claims he blocked a three\u2011way meeting over Revolut’s bid for full UK banking authorisation. He said relations were very good, defended the PRA’s operational independence and said the regulator and Revolut are working through a restricted mobilisation phase that could face timing and resourcing hurdles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, dismissed suggestions of a rupture with the Treasury over delays to fintech firm Revolut\u2019s move to full UK banking authorisation, telling CNBC there had been \u201cno falling out\u201d with Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Speaking to CNBC\u2019s Ritika Gupta, Bailey said relations were \u201cvery good\u201d and repeated that the Prudential Regulation Authority was working with Revolut through its mobilisation phase, although he declined to discuss the firm\u2019s case in detail. According to the original interview, the comments were intended to downplay reports of friction between the central bank and ministers. <\/p>\n
Those reports had been fuelled by press accounts that a proposed three\u2011way meeting between the Chancellor, Revolut and the PRA was cancelled after intervention from the Bank\u2019s governor. The Financial Times and The Guardian reported that Bailey blocked the meeting amid concerns that ministerial participation could be perceived as political interference in an area of prudential supervision that the Bank insists must remain operationally independent. The episode has been portrayed in some coverage as emblematic of wider tensions over whether regulators should be urged to take a more growth\u2011friendly stance.<\/p>\n
Bailey\u2019s stance sits alongside a broader defence of the Bank\u2019s remit. He has told MPs he will resist characterisations that the Bank\u2019s rules are a straitjacket on growth, and he disputed a description by the Chancellor \u2014 reported in Parliament \u2014 that some rules were \u201ca boot on the neck of business.\u201d He made clear the Bank remains open to targeted adjustments but will protect core safeguards such as ring\u2011fencing and depositor protection. At the same time he reiterated, in the CNBC interview, that the PRA is \u201cworking things through\u201d with Revolut as the firm moves through its restricted mobilisation period.<\/p>\n
Revolut itself has framed the development as progress. In a company announcement last July, Revolut said it had received a UK banking licence with restrictions and entered the PRA\u2019s mobilisation stage on 25 July 2024. The fintech characterised mobilisation as an \u201cauthorisation\u2011with\u2011restrictions\u201d phase that allows a new bank to build systems, governance and operational capacity before full launch, and it emphasised that customers would see no immediate change. Those claims are Revolut\u2019s account of its status and milestones, and they focus on the firm\u2019s readiness to meet regulatory conditions rather than firm timetables for opening to wider deposits.<\/p>\n
But industry reporting has flagged practical obstacles. City A.M. has reported growing doubts within the sector that Revolut could complete mobilisation within the typical 12\u2011month window envisaged by PRA guidance, citing operational, compliance and resourcing challenges at a scale that has surprised some observers. That reporting warns of regulatory consequences if mobilisation is not completed on schedule, while noting Revolut\u2019s public line that it is working constructively with the regulator rather than chasing a calendar deadline.<\/p>\n
The dispute reaches beyond one firm. Ministers have made clear that supporting fintech growth and bolstering London\u2019s appeal as a global technology and finance hub are priorities for the Treasury, while the Bank stresses that financial stability and depositor protection cannot be compromised. The clash of emphasis \u2014 growth versus prudential caution \u2014 frames why the Revolut case carries political as well as regulatory significance and why any suggestion of government intervention in supervisory decisions attracts scrutiny.<\/p>\n
For now both sides stress common ground: ministers and the Bank say they want a thriving fintech sector, and the PRA and Revolut say they are engaged in a mobilisation process designed to ensure new banking activity is safe and sustainable. Whether that process produces full authorisation within the expected timetable will depend on the practical work now under way between the firm and its regulator \u2014 and on whether political pressure remains in the background or stays expressly out of the regulatory room.<\/p>\n