A week is a long time in politics and a day is a long time in banking. On Tuesday afternoon, NatWest chief Dame Alison Rose admitted that she had ‘made a serious error of judgment’ and was the BBC source who discussed Nigel Farage’s bank details with Simon Jack at a charity dinner.
The senior journalist had left the dinner with the impression that the Coutts bank account closure was down to a lack of funds rather than politically motivated. It later transpired through a subject access request by Farage that this was wide of the mark and the bank had been discussing his political views and the ‘reputational damage’ associated with keeping him as a customer.
The view in government is that the issue goes beyond Farage and Coutts
Despite admitting being the source, Rose appeared last night to believe that she could cling on. The NatWest board had insisted that, despite the furore that has been going for well over a week, they still had full confidence in Rose, who has been with the bank for more than three decades. As I understand it, when her statement broke on Tuesday, jaws hit the floor in government. Senior ministers felt her position at the taxpayer-backed lender was untenable if she had been discussing the private details of an account holder with journalists.
Figures in Downing Street and the Treasury expressed significant concerns at the situation. Speaking this morning, City minister Andrew Griffith said it was ‘right’ that Rose had resigned: ‘This would never have happened if NatWest had not taken it upon itself to withdraw a bank account due to someone’s lawful political views . . . I hope the whole financial sector learns from this incident.’ ‘I think the reality was realised upon her,’ adds one government figure of the past twelve hours.
Questions are being asked over the wisdom of the board which appears to have backed Rose even when it was clear to most that she would struggle to stay in the role, thereby drawing out the whole process for longer. ‘They endorsed a breach of the banking code and a lie about the conversation with Simon Jack,’ Nigel Farage tells me. ‘They should all go.’ NatWest now needs to find both a new chief executive and a new chair, with the current chairman Howard Davies announcing in April that he will leave the bank by next year. This could complicate the process of finding a successor for Rose.
Notably Labour appears to be seeking to draw a dividing line with the Tories on the issue – with shadow trade secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds arguing in his morning media round that Rose’s position ought to have been a ‘matter for NatWest’ rather than one for ministers to intervene on. Of course, the government is the biggest shareholder in NatWest with a 38.6 per cent stake following a taxpayer bailout as a result of the financial crisis. Labour’s aim is two fold 1. raise the issue of whether the Prime Minister pressurised Rose to resign 2. Show that Labour is on the side of business.
In the meantime, the government plans to press on with its crackdown to protect individuals from being ‘de-banked’. Today Griffith will meet with the bosses of the main banks to discuss how to avoid this happening in the future. The view is that the issue goes beyond Farage with plenty of other cases of bank account closures which could be down to a lender finding an individual’s political views unpalatable. Rose had been due to attend – her absence will serve as a reminder to those present of what happens if the lessons are not learned.
Comments