The BBC’s Simon Jack, citing “people familiar with the decision”, advised the choice was solely business, as Farage had fallen below the wealth threshold for an account. However, Farage later produced a file collected by Coutts’ Wealth Reputational Risk Committee, which compiled proof on the “significant reputational risks of being associated with him”. It mentioned his positions akin to help for Donald Trump and statements seen as sympathetic to Vladimir Putin have been “at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”.
The Telegraph later reported that Rose had sat beside Jack at a charity dinner simply earlier than his report, and so questions arose of whether or not she had leaked confidential or false details about Farage’s account.
Rose mentioned she didn’t present any private monetary details about Farage, however that her statements “left Mr Jack with the impression that the decision to close Mr Farage’s accounts was solely a commercial one”.
However, regardless of stress to resign, NatWest chair Howard Davies mentioned she nonetheless has the board’s full backing.
Davies mentioned: “After careful reflection the Board has concluded that it retains full confidence in Ms Rose as CEO of the bank.
“She has proved, over the last four years to be an outstanding leader of the institution, as demonstrated by our results. The Board therefore believes it is clearly in the interest of all the bank’s shareholders and customers that she continues in post.
“The board is clear that the overall handling of the circumstances surrounding Mr Farage accounts has been unsatisfactory, with serious consequences for the bank. The Board will commission an independent review into the account closure arrangement at Coutts, and the lessons to be learnt from this.”
But Davies added that “the events will be taken into account in decisions on remuneration at the appropriate time”.
Rose mentioned: “I recognise that in my conversations with Simon Jack of the BBC, I made a serious error of judgment in discussing Mr Farage’s relationship with the bank. Given the consequences of this, I want to address the questions that have been raised and set out the substance of the conversations that took place.
“Believing it was public knowledge, I confirmed that Mr Farage was a Coutts customer and that he had been offered a NatWest bank account. Alongside this, I repeated what Mr Farage had already stated, that the bank saw this as a commercial decision.
“I would like to emphasise that in responding to Mr Jack’s questions I did not reveal any personal financial information about Mr Farage. In response to a general question about eligibility criteria required to bank with Coutts and NatWest I said that guidance on both was publicly available on their websites. In doing so, I recognise that I left Mr Jack with the impression that the decision to close Mr Farage’s accounts was solely a commercial one.
“I was not part of the decision-making process to exit Mr Farage. This decision was made by Coutts, and I was informed in April that this was for commercial reasons. At the time of my conversations with Mr Jack, I was not in receipt of the contents of the Coutts Wealth Reputational Risk Committee materials subsequently released by Mr Farage.
“ I have apologised to Mr Farage for the deeply inappropriate language contained in those papers and the Board has commissioned a full independent review into the decision and process to ensure that this cannot happen again.”
