Royal Bank Of Scotland CEO Stephen Hester's Bonus Should Be Refused, Says Minister Jeremy Browne

Stephen Hester

PA/The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 27/01/2012 05:40 Updated: 27/01/2012 10:29

Stephen Hester's £963,000 bonus has been attacked as "out of touch" by Labour, as a government minister claimed he had a public "duty" to refuse it.

Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne issued an outspoken appeal to Hester to put the taxpayer before his personal wealth and refuse to take the shares.

The bank chief earned the same in three days as a soldier fighting in Afghanistan did in a year, the Foreign Office minister told BBC1's Question Time, adding: "I think he should reflect on that.

"He is working for a company which is five sixths owned by us, the taxpayer, and I think he has to think like a public servant, not like someone who's there to line their own pocket.

"He needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to his country, not just his own wealth."

He added: "No-one's forcing him to take this money. He could struggle on with £1.2m."

Ed Miliband has called on David Cameron to explain RBS chief Stephen Hester's £963,000 bonus, after accusing him of "nodding through" the pay package.

"He has also been lecturing shareholders about how they need to be more active in holding executives to account. He owns, through the British government, 83% of RBS. He must now explain, not least to the British people, why he has allowed this to happen," the Labour leader said.

Taxpayer owned Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Stephen Hester's payout was limited to around 60% of the maximum following intense political pressure.

The senior City figure, who has a salary of £1.2 million, could get 3.6 million shares in the bailed-out financial institution, which is 83% state owned.

It is less than half the value of last year's all-shares bonus and comes after Prime Minister David Cameron made clear he expected the bonus to be "a lot less" than in 2011.

Treasury sources said they were pleased at the reduction on the previous bonus and that the government's view had been "made very clear" over recent weeks.

But the opposition said that the scale of the payout showed the government was "desperately out of touch" with voters and not serious about reining in executive pay and perks.

Chuka Umunna, who leaders Labour's shadow business team, said he was "flabbergasted" that Hester had been given a bonus.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't think I would have paid any bonus in these circumstances."

Umunna said the bonus was issued on an "annual basis" so there was "discretion" able to be applied by the government.

"The government is the main shareholder here and ministers have said that shareholders should take a more active role in reining in pay."

Concern was also raised by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's chief political adviser Norman Lamb who said he, and most people, would be "deeply uncomfortable with a bonus of that size".

Pay at RBS has become a lightning rod for public fury over huge rewards in the financial sector ever since its £45 billion state bailout.

The bank's remuneration committee had reportedly been considering a bonus of up to £1.5 million for its highly-regarded leader but Cameron publicly said it should be less.

The decision followed talks with UK Financial Investments (UKFI), the body which manages the taxpayer's stakes in Britain's bailed-out banks.

RBS group chairman Sir Philip Hampton said the company was "aware of the difficulties in trying to reconcile the competing objectives of all our stakeholders", especially on pay.

Defending the award however, he said it reflected that the turnaround of the bank was "progressing well" under Mr Hester, who had "played no part" in its collapse.

Deferring the chance to cash in the shares, meaning the final value of the bonus could fall or rise, protected shareholders, including the taxpayer, the bank said.

Shadow financial secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie said: "Nobody doubts that Stephen Hester has done some important things at RBS.

"But what this award shows is David Cameron's promises about reining in excessive bonuses at state-owned banks or using shareholder power have proved to be utterly worthless.

"Indeed, anyone who thinks it is acceptable to award a bonus of almost £1 million on top of a basic salary of £1.2 million in these tough times is desperately out of touch with millions of people who are struggling to make ends meet."

A Conservative Party spokesman said they were "pleased" the bonus was halved compared to 2011, and accused Labour of failing to tackle big bonuses and presiding over the bank collapse.

RBS's concession on Hester's bonus will not defuse the row over directors' pay completely, as John Hourican, head of RBS's investment arm, who will oversee a restructuring that will include around 3,500 job losses, picks up £4 million in long-term incentive shares that he was awarded in 2009.

Britain's biggest banks are expected to unveil their bonus plans next month when they publish their annual results.

Antonio Horta-Osorio, chief executive of part-nationalised Lloyds Banking Group, announced he would forgo his annual bonus of up to £2.4 million following his two-month leave of absence and a rocky period for the banking giant.

Elsewhere, reports have suggested Barclays boss Bob Diamond could receive a £10 million payout in the forthcoming bonus season.

Business Secretary Vince Cable recently unveiled proposals to crack down on hefty salaries and bonuses, including binding votes for shareholders and improved transparency.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Stephen Hester's £963,000 bonus has been attacked as "out of touch" by Labour, as a government minister claimed he had a public "duty" to refuse it. Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne issued an outspo...
Stephen Hester's £963,000 bonus has been attacked as "out of touch" by Labour, as a government minister claimed he had a public "duty" to refuse it. Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne issued an outspo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 110
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
23:34 on 28/01/2012
The Bankers obviously don't agree with their noble leaders catch phrase "that we are ALL in this together". The Banking institution is of course an absolute disgrace, GREED being the only catch phrase applicable to THEM. Instead of the outrageous bonus for FAILURE, I would give Mr Hester the generous state SANCTIONS of £4.00 a day, for 6 months to live off of, which I and many other hard working British citizens had imposed upon them by the lunatic politicians based at Westminster Parliament. The Bankers and Politicians will only be in it together with the rest of the British public once they have experienced a Healthy doze of these generous charitable SANCTIONS????????????????
01:45 on 28/01/2012
Is it really up to him to refuse it, its a disgusting amount to receive as a bonus but its the banks that shouldn't be giving it to him in the first place.
photo
SecularAdvocate
Media Watcher
20:14 on 27/01/2012
The most interesting thing about today's news is that Boris Johnson seems to be a more effective opposition to the government than the Labour party.

The sad truth of the matter is that if the bank doesn't behave sufficiently like a bank, it will be bullied into failure by other banks, all of whom insist on banks and their top brass behaving a certain way.

They have to maintain the illusion that they are not a bunch of grasping halfwits who are just lucky to be in banking, like a bunch of fleas on a big dog claiming they are controlling it.

They all have to pretend they are talented, and that other banks need talent just like theirs, or the game's up. As George Carlin said - "It's just a big club, and you're not in it".

And talking of big clubs that we aren't in - isn't it an extraordinary co-incidence that both the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London went to the same school?

Amazing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakyracir
My spaniel is watching you
19:39 on 27/01/2012
The time to sort this out was before he was hired - not after the contract was signed. The fault is with the directors appointed by the government to represent the national interest on the RBS board - either they are incompetent or the instructions they were given were inadequate. Which is it?
19:13 on 27/01/2012
We are definitely all in this together " Dave" all paying through our eyes and nose to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer .Typical tory goverment
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
02:16 on 28/01/2012
Dead right'..As long as you have Tories' they'll take care of the Bankers because they are one and the same kind...Meanwhile they'll grind us into the dust to pay for their mistakes..Hester' should refuse this unearned bonus...After all he sacked thousands of people at RBS'..who did actually do the work.
16:25 on 28/01/2012
Are you really saying that Labour did not take care oif the Bankers? Oh, who was in government when RBS went down - Mr Nobody perhaps? WAKEY, WAKEY do come into the real world
18:53 on 27/01/2012
ok so this man has work some magic a bank that was billions in dept has made a good healthy profit now so maybe a bonus is just . i have a slight issue with the size of it though, work hard above and beyond my duty i got no pay rise this year but was happy yo find £150 bonus at christmas , even half of the million as a bonus would sit better with every one i think ????
18:10 on 27/01/2012
The politicians take care of the bankers. And the bankers take care of the politicians. The rest of us are screwed by both sides.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
00:29 on 29/01/2012
Welcome to LA(Lunatic Asylum). I don't know about you but I'd rather be in the glitzy sunny LA california, than MAD Britain?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Daisy May Boldock
Yorkshire..Gods Own Country
01:45 on 29/01/2012
The moon would be favourable for me living amongst these misfits!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jessjesskk
Benevolent Zombie Power
14:49 on 27/01/2012
Worth repeating that this is a scale game.
Laying out the economics: Take an market cap of £10bn. if you believe that the CEO can have an impact of only, say, +/- 1%, this is £100m.

As an insurance policy for such a decrease/increase of value, wouldn't you be ready to pay at least 1%?

and 1% is £1m

We may not like it from a societal standpoint but it makes sense from an economic standpoint...
15:20 on 27/01/2012
Not to spoil your economic analysis but if the math is right, 1% and how does one compute that? I am actually one of those who think responsible capitalism is overdue. The contribution of CEO in comparison to the 'worker bees'contribution' is always blown out of proportion. So lets do the math, the other 99% , 'impact should then arise from the positive contribution of the other employees. How many are the other employees and what is their share? To be frank mostly that success hails from thousands of employees and they may only be earning
20, 000 each never mind any mention of bonuses!

It is the 1% having may be 40 - 60% of national wealth that is begining to cause anger and anguish. Things must change. The culture of bloated greed has to go!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jessjesskk
Benevolent Zombie Power
08:48 on 28/01/2012
the ceo has an impact that is disproportionate to the rank and file employee. Take the ceo of kodak and the ceo of apple. One took the decision to continue to harvest cash in its old field without garnering the fuiture of the industry. Doing that he preserved value on the short term at the expense of destroying the company long term.
Now take Jobs, he came in a company that was close to nothing introduced new products and made it what it is today.

CEO, and people in executive position, matters more to a company than the rank and file employee because each decision they take has a disproportionate impact for the company and as such for the value owned by the shareholder.

There are two very different issues
1. are shareholders ready to pay for the ceo that potentially takes good or bad decision for their wealth
2. is society happy with disparate salaries

1. is a question that pertains to shareholders
2. is a question that pertains to politicians
16:07 on 27/01/2012
My experience is that most of the time the other employees are doing as much as they can to 'limit' the damage caused by the CEO - so it is really the other employees who deserve the credit...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jessjesskk
Benevolent Zombie Power
08:42 on 28/01/2012
then we enter into a completely different universe without a ceo. But as long as the shareholders believe a CEO makes a difference that's what matters
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
13:41 on 27/01/2012
What is Milliband whining for, it was his party who allowed Mr Hester to be chief of RBS in 2008, and agreed the pay package that went with it! It was during his parties adminastration that this all happened, and every honest working man and woman are paying a heavy price. :-(
13:12 on 27/01/2012
he has been paid in shares which become available for sale in 2014. however as he receives them he will have to pay 50% tax on them.

i am not happy about civil servants and public employees of any sort getting any form of bonus. here though it is in his best interest to ensure that the share price rises. that would be of benefit to the public.

there are complaints about his pay, it is a lot but it is also less then a quarter of what a fair number of presenters get at the BBC and what do they contribute to society?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allyb999
14:37 on 27/01/2012
Just because someone is overpaid that makes it ok for someone else to be?
14:57 on 27/01/2012
YES
15:24 on 27/01/2012
no it doesnt , but why complain about just one of them. at the end of the day if this guy gets the share price right up then the public get more money back. those at the Beeb continue to soak up taxpayers money to fund their life styles. some of them are earning around 6 million pounds a year.
15:27 on 27/01/2012
And judging by the fact that the recent fall in RBS share price is speedily being reversed. And say he loses 50% of the 963 000 shares as tax, still just imagine what even have 482 000 shares will be worth in 2014. If the projection for recovery is right could even be upto ten times more and that is where the insidious obcenity of this kind of bonus reveals itself. It is day light robbery and I gues in 2013 he will just get more, right?
15:47 on 27/01/2012
i agree entirely. the point i am making though is that there are many others earning far to much from the public purse. he at least has the chance to get money back for the government.
12:45 on 27/01/2012
Toytown money - it has to be! How can anyone earn so much and then take a 'cut' that leaves him with 'only' £963,000 more? Particularly given that it's 'the widow's mite' of so many that set him safely where he is today!
Do these people actually know what it's like in the real world?
13:01 on 27/01/2012
"Do these people actually know what it's like in the real world? "
No!

What you have to realise is that this sort of persons life is dedicated to climbing the greasy pole, impressing some people, bullying others, getting away with whatever they can and never accepting any blame.

In other words he probably does not even have what the likes of you and me would term a conscience...
13:40 on 27/01/2012
You're right - so where did it go, that conscience?
A thousand years ago, when I was young, I took a job delivering groceries. I thoroughly enjoyed it, which meant I was good at it, and this showed in the remarkably generous 'tips' I received at Christmas.
Coming, as I did, from a relatively well-off family - and still living at home - I couldn't square it with my conscience to accept this bounty from people, some of whom lived less well than I did, so I gave it all to charity.
I didn't think of myself as doing a good deed, I simply acted in accordance with the principles I'd been given as a child.
Do these principles no longer apply?
12:41 on 27/01/2012
Amongst all this justified shouting against this excessive pay/bonus, no-one has said how much Hester claims on expenses, how much the accountants save him, etc. I personally think that there is surely only so much money that he can spend in a life time! Bet he's not overly charitable either.
12:23 on 27/01/2012
If I were him and it would not surprise me if he did this, I would take the money, retire or look for another job...does this sound familiar? I'm sure another at RBS did this not so long ago.
12:15 on 27/01/2012
His only real claim to fame in the City is that he's a Wayne Rooney lookalike. Other than that he's just another cardboard figure not worth a fraction of what his cronies vote to pay him.
11:46 on 27/01/2012
Think of the expenses these people claim and other perks, never see them lunching at Mc Donalds do you?