There is the acrid stench of a stitch-up between NatWest and No 10 over the handling of the latest scandal in the Nigel Farage affair.
It is inconceivable that Howard Davies, NatWest chairman, has decided not to sack Dame Alison Rose after admitting that she was the source of the BBC story about Farage’s account, without the Prime Minister’s blessing.
After all, the Government – or rather we the taxpayer – is the biggest shareholder in NatWest. Either No 10 or the Treasury – probably both – must have been consulted over whether NatWest should keep Dame Alison in her role or sack her.
Inexcusably, NatWest wants her to stay but for the most pathetic reasons.
NatWest chairman Howard Davies has decided not to sack Dame Alison Rose after admitting that she was the source of the BBC story about Nigel Farage’s account
Indeed, the statement put out late yesterday by Davies – with the backing of the independent non-executive directors and the board – is a weasel defence of Dame Alison, describing her conversation with BBC journalist, Simon Jack, as ‘a regrettable error of judgement on her part’.
Really? An error of judgement? Is it only an error of judgement to reveal the financial details of one of the most high-profile political characters of the last few decades to Britain’s only publicly-owned broadcaster?
Maybe Dame Alison and Jack had enjoyed too much of the hospitality at that fateful dinner at London’s Langham Hotel.
Rose’s words were careless and flippant rather than an error of judgement.
Bankers don’t have quite such a precise equivalent of the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath but client confidentiality – and my word is my bond – is pretty good to be getting on with.
And Dame Alison blew her bond.
The former chairman of the Financial Services Authority no less, Davies, goes on to say that: ‘The events will be taken into account in decisions on remuneration at the appropriate time.’ This rather suggests that NatWest believes that the betrayal of a client by the bank boss can be compensated for by paying Dame Alison less money?
That is laughable and rather supports the view that bankers are even more greedy than we think they are. Dame Alison’s own mea culpa was just as pathetic.
She also says her comments to Jack about Farage were an ‘error of judgement’.
She defends herself by saying she thought it was general knowledge that he banked at Coutts, but even so confirmed it, going further, telling Jack he had been offered a NatWest account. Even that is breaking client confidentiality.
The fact that she had not seen the Coutts Wealth Reputational Risk Committee – the dossier which names Farage as a Brexiteering, Novak Djokovic supporting grifter of dubious racist values – is simply irrelevant. She should have said nothing.
What is interesting is that the Financial Conduct Authority – the City’s main watchdog – is taking a much harder line than the Government or NatWest itself.
Sheldon Mills, consumer and competition director, appears to be putting feet to the fire. Encouragingly, Mills says the FCA has already raised concerns with NatWest and Coutts about the allegations of breach of customer confidentiality, adding that NatWest’s review must be well resourced and have access to all information.
Then it will decide what action to take. Good.
Both Davies and Dame Alison conclude their statements with more apologies, and the promises of independent reviews to ‘ensure this doesn’t happen again’.
They also both profess great affection for each other.
Davies saying what an outstanding leader Dame Alison has proved to be while she says it’s been the privilege of her life to work for the bank.
Both these sentiments can be true, and she has proved to be a good banker.
Yet if my word is my bond means anything at all, Dame Alison has to step down to show that the bank has the very highest of ethical values – and accountability.
Heads should also roll at the most senior levels at Coutts – particularly those responsible for allowing such a cack-handed mess to occur.