“Co-op Bank’s governance structure up to the middle of 2013 was entirely inadequate for a bank of any size; it is shocking that it was in place in an institution that came so close to becoming a major new challenger bank. Co-op Bank’s board was dominated by members from the parent group who lacked financial services experience. Those members with financial services experience were responsible for overseeing a very broad range of business. Being small in number, their expertise was spread too thinly, and ran the risk of being over-ruled by possibly well-meaning, but inexperienced, democratic members of the board. Yet, at least from 2009 to 2011, the board was also too large and unwieldy to allow for meaningful discussion and debate. The executive was also subject to influence from Co-op Group, with the bank’s Chief Executive in a direct reporting line to the group’s Chief Executive from 2011. (paragraph 203)
The deficient composition of Co-op Bank’s governance was embodied in Paul Flowers, who lacked any of the requisite financial services experience to act as Chairman of a bank. In this regard he appointed two experienced Deputy Chairmen to strengthen the advice to him and the board. Mr Flowers was appointed on the basis that he would be able to navigate the ‘politics’ of Co-op Group and chair the board. We took evidence that he had performed these functions well. But this was an inappropriate basis for his appointment. An effective bank Chairman should usually possess a good deal of experience of financial services. He or she should be at least capable of understanding financial issues. Mr Flowers lacked both the desirable experience and the minimum essential skills. He should not have put himself forward for the role. Co-op should not have selected him. The regulator should not have permitted his appointment.”
Excerto de um relatório de uma “comissão parlamentar” inglesa, que também pode servir de exemplo sobre o funcionamento de comissões parlamentares de inquérito.