Former Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond has hit back at claims he was “highly selective” when he gave evidence to MPs over the Libor rate-rigging scandal.
The Treasury select committee’s report on the manipulation of Libor, published on Saturday, contains damning criticism of Diamond, branding his evidence to the TSC as “lacking in candour and frankness” and falling well short of the standard parliament expects.
Diamond says he is disappointed with the findings of the report and strongly disagrees with several of the committee’s statements.
He says: “I answered every question that was put to me truthfully, candidly and based on information available to me. I categorically refute any suggestion to the contrary.”
In June, Barclays was fined £290m by US and UK regulators for manipulating Libor.
Diamond has questioned the committee’s finding that the culture at Barclays was flawed and allowed bosses to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing.
He says: “There is no question that the behaviour of a small group of traders related to Libor manipulation was reprehensible and not in keeping with Barclays’ high standards.
“At the same time, it should be recorded that broader issues with Libor have been a subject of discussion among regulators for years, and there is little dispute that Barclays was both aggressive in its investigation of this matter and engaged in its cooperation with the appropriate authorities.
“Looking forward, it’s clear that thoughtful analysis and regulation of issues affecting the banking industry are required and I have no doubt that Barclays is committed to being part of the solution.”
Former Barclays deputy chairman Sir Nigel Rudd has also slammed MPs for the “completely unacceptable” attack on Diamond.
According to The Sunday Times, Rudd said the TSC failed to provide sufficient evidence to back up its claims that Diamond misled parliament.
He says: “In my time on the Barclays board I never felt he kept anything from the other directors, or gave anything other than an open and honest account of himself. It is one thing to attack a man’s judgment or his decisions. It is quite another to attack his integrity. I do not believe there is any evidence that he misled parliament.”