Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to finish my point. I have been very generous and time is moving on.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way just on this point?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I am going to finish the point that I began.

Bonuses are a reward for exceptional performance in other industries, so that should be the case in the banking sector as well. However, despite the scandals that have emerged over the past year, most recently at HSBC, it looks as though this year’s round of bank bonuses will once again be very generous.

There needs to be more accountability in banking, and pay must be more closely aligned with long-term performance, so a Labour Government will embark on a serious and far-reaching programme of reform in the banking sector. We will reintroduce our successful tax on bankers’ bonuses, which generated over £3 billion in 2010, and act to ensure that this tax incorporates role-based pay or any other payments made by banks in an attempt to circumvent the EU bonus cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that for the last 10 years of my career at Invesco Perpetual, I was responsible for writing a quantitative bonus scheme that measured the performance of fund managers over three, five and 10 years according to the performance of the team, the business and the individual, which involved clawbacks, as appropriate. I started that work in 1999 and finished it in 2009, so I can say with confidence that I did my bit on remuneration.

What have the Government done that we are so proud of? First, we have brought down the quantum of bonuses. City bonuses are now a fifth of what they were under Labour. The banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer have been a key focus for the Government, so let me inform the House about what is happening with bonuses at RBS. We will ensure that the total bonus pool comes down again, both in total and per head. That will continue the reductions that made last year’s bonuses more than two-thirds lower than those in 2009. The bonus pool at the investment bank will come down too in total and per head. We are continuing to restrict cash bonuses to £2,000, and no executive director will receive a bonus.

Let me also tell the House what is happening at Lloyds. This week, we announced that we are getting back another half a billion pounds for taxpayers—money that they had to put in. We can do that because since the crisis Lloyds has gone from failure to being a strong, profitable bank that is helping to drive the UK recovery and is contributing £230 million a year through the bank levy. We will ensure that Lloyds sees its bonus pool reduce this year and we are continuing to restrict cash bonuses to £2,000.

Let us compare that with the Labour party, which presided over a system that paid Fred Goodwin a cash bonus of £2.9 million in 2007. It is now calling for a 10-year clawback on bonuses—once again asking us to clear up the mess that it left—and has spent its bank tax proposal 10 times over.

The Government have made the link between bonuses and performance crystal clear. Bankers should be in no doubt that their bonuses are at risk should misbehaviour occur. Under this Government, highly paid bankers and those who are liable for big decisions have their bonuses deferred over at least three years, and at least 60% must be deferred for senior managers. Bonuses are now clearly linked to the performance of banks, since 50% of any bonus must be paid in shares or similar instruments. Deferred bonuses can be subject to cancellation in the future. Since the start of this year, bonuses can be clawed back up to seven years after they are paid out when misconduct or serious performance issues come to light. Guaranteed bonuses, which were commonplace under the previous Government, are banned in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

We have taken the lead in ensuring that there is transparency in senior executives’ pay arrangements. We have ensured that all the top 15 banks have signed up to the strengthened code of practice, which is a notable improvement on the two that had signed up when Labour left office. Our reforms to company law mean that shareholders are guaranteed a binding vote on pay policy.

We are not stopping there. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which was attended so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), made strong recommendations on bankers’ pay.

[David Mowat]

The Minister is right to say that the level of bonuses has reduced hugely in the past few years. However, does she agree that the real issue with banking is not the bonus level, but the level of absolute remuneration, which the Labour party’s policy does not address? Why does she think banks require so many people to earn more than £1 million a year, in a way that oil companies and pharmaceutical companies do not? The issue is the absolute level of remuneration.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Philosophically, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Many people across the country will agree that the absolute level of remuneration in financial services needs to be clearly justified. Although the Conservative party truly believes that wealth creation, which creates jobs, tax revenue for the Exchequer and growth for our economy, should be properly remunerated, we want to give as much power as possible to shareholders to ensure that they can take decisions that make it absolutely clear that remuneration should reflect the contribution of the individual, and not just some norm in the industry.

We have agreed with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and asked the financial services regulators to look into implementing them, in particular the extension of clawback to 10 years when an investigation into an individual is ongoing and the extension of deferral to seven years for senior managers, which is a significant increase from the current three years. The regulators are due to publish final rules in response to the consultation shortly. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we want to keep our independent regulators independent, so that they act in the best interests of our economy and not in the interests of a political party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is interesting to take part in another Opposition day debate on this subject. The Opposition had 13 years to deliver their dream for the financial services and banking sector, but what they left us was, of course, a nightmare, and we have had to do a lot to tidy it up. Without wanting to threaten coalition entente cordiale, I should say that people who examine this subject trace some of the problems back to the deregulation that took place in 1986. It was so drastic that it has been called the big bang. It is certainly true that my coalition partners were still calling for lighter regulation as late as 2007.

However, between us, we recognised that there was a nightmare to sort out, and a great deal has happened, principally the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. Let me pick out three items. First, there is a new criminal offence that covers those who run banks and building societies and have engaged in reckless misconduct. The penalty is a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, or an unlimited fine. Secondly, we have worked closely with other countries to tackle risk by introducing strict requirements in relation to the capital that banks must hold. Thirdly, we have prevented banks from engaging in or promoting tax avoidance by making the 15 biggest banks sign up to a code of practice. My party wants more to be done about that: we think that there is room for a new offence of corporate failure to prevent economic crime. We believe that not just those who evade taxes but those who advise or enable them should be prosecuted.

We are still seeing scandal after scandal, and it is notable that most of the scandals that are still hitting the news arose on the last Government’s watch—or the seeds were sown then—so we have had a great deal to do. We introduced the banking levy, and we have kept it going. My party wants it to continue, so that banks go on contributing to the process of rebalancing our budget and helping our economy.

As we have heard from several Members today, bankers are paid a lot. I think that there is a fundamental cultural problem. When an organisation has money to allocate, it has to think about its stakeholders. It has to think about its customers in terms of services and pricing, and it has to think about its shareholders in terms of the reward on the capital that they have invested. It also has to think about investing in its own business. About 10 years ago, my daughter worked in a branch of Barclays bank that was still using punch card machines that I thought had gone out in the late 1970s.

Staff are, of course, part of the balance, but I think most of us feel that the balance between the various stakeholders in some of the big banks has been tipped too far towards senior staff. However, bonuses are a great deal lower than they were. They have fallen from nearly £11 billion, or £33,000 a head, in 2007 to less than £2 billion, or £6,000 a head, in 2013. They are rising a little as banks are getting their act together, but they are nowhere near as high as they once were.

As so often happens with Labour motions, the Opposition have tried to connect two completely disconnected issues. We can have a debate about banking and we can have a debate about youth unemployment, but it is not logical or correct to suggest that the one either depends on the other or is solved by the other.

Of course I support moves to reduce youth unemployment. For me, however, unemployment is not about percentages but about people, and 830 fewer people in my constituency have been out of work in the last year. Unemployment remains far too high, and it is particularly high in the north-east, but it has fallen by an average of about 1,000 people per constituency in the north-east over the past year. In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen by 43% since the 2010 election, when I inherited my legacy.

The motion asks us to consider the issue of youth unemployment, and also to consider the proposition that the bankers’ bonus tax will help to sort it out. The bonus tax has become the magic porridge pot of Labour policy making. I have a list of nine uses to which Labour Members have put it so far, and I think that my hon. Friends could raise the number to about 11. The last occasion on which we discussed the subject was quite remarkable. The shadow Minister who opened the debate referred to one use for the tax while the Minister who closed it referred to a different one, so they obviously had not shared notes. Perhaps, given that we are so near to a general election, they will finally settle on a use for it.

Let us now think about what will actually happen. If I understand the Opposition’s policy correctly, they want individuals to pay 50% tax on their bonuses, and they want banks to pay 50% tax on those bonuses. Of course, banks have other employment costs, particularly national insurance. Barclays has calculated that, when all that is added together, it will be paying 115% tax on its bonuses. Is it really likely that a bank will continue to declare £1 of bonuses to ensure that a Labour Government receive £1.15?

Matt, the famous cartoonist, must have been very prescient when he prepared his 2015 calendar. The cartoon for this very month shows a banker sitting behind a desk and someone else standing some distance away from him. The banker is saying “I cannot give you a bonus, but there is a £2 million reward for the person who finds my umbrella”—and there is an umbrella on the floor between them. In other words, banks will find ways around this.

It is not just Matt who has made the point. Referring to Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said:

“I think it will be a one-off thing because, frankly, the very people you are after here are very good at getting out of these things and...will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future.”

[David Mowat]

The Opposition’s policy would result in avoidance of the tax through increased fixed-level pay and reduced variable-level pay. A much better way of taxing banks is to tax their balance sheets, which is what the Government have done, because taxation of that kind cannot be avoided in the same way.

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point, and his words stand on the record. In fact, I was about to mention an aspect of what he has said. It is interesting to note that the motion itself refers to an avoidance method, and tries to close the loophole. As for the clawback proposal, the more we disincentivise banks from paying bonuses, the lower will be the amount that is available for clawback purposes. So, as my hon. Friend has just suggested, the policy is self-defeating.

The banks say that high pay and large bonuses are necessary for competition, but new competition is already emerging. I recommend all Members to visit their local branch of Handelsbanken, which has no targets and does not pay bonuses. It is an incredibly successful bank, and is growing very fast in this country. Competition has already started to undermine the business models of the large banks. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) mentioned Atom bank. I too have visited its offices, and I am trying to support it as much as I can. Banks of that kind will disrupt existing business models, because they have a much lower cost base than traditional banks. We will see movement: the banks that think life will continue unchanged will find themselves pursued by competition.

One aspect of new funding that needs to be examined is crowdfunding. I think that the next Government will find that they need to consider regulation in that area. We are just starting to hear about some of the scandals involving a practice that is, at present, largely unregulated.

In general, we need to encourage competition, we need disruptive business models, and we need to recognise that, in the private sector, competition should be allowed to beat down bad practice and encourage good practice. We need a successful financial services sector, and we need it to be well regulated. The sector has made it very clear that it does not want a Government who are either anti-Europe or anti-business.

My conclusion is this. If the question is “How do we make our economy stronger and society fairer?”, nothing that we have heard from the Opposition today makes me feel confident that they are the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is why people watching the debate will find it absolutely incredible that millions of pounds have been paid to bankers in bonuses.

I should like to come back to the central points in the motion. Pay should be a reward for good performance, but we have seen a disconnect between bank performance and the pay of many senior executives and traders. We have discussed whether or not there is improved accountability in the banking system. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister tried to persuade us that that was all sorted and that everything was fine and good. However, the argument that it was right for the Government to resist the EU cap on bonuses because if bankers did not receive bonuses they would just receive higher pay reveals that accountability mechanisms have completely failed. If those mechanisms were working properly, shareholders would be able to prevent that abuse and something that is in effect a loophole. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) would intervene, as that was a point that he made.

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Lady for encouraging me to speak. I agree with her. The issue is not about whether to have bonuses or not; it is about absolute levels of remuneration in banks. I do not understand why the Labour party is not trying to address that. There is a good point to be made about why Barclays needs 1,000 people who earn £1 million a year while other organisations do not. The only explanation in the end is that the market is not working properly, which is why we must have more challenger banks to compete that away.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, makes a fair point. One of the regrets of Opposition Members is that not all the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards have been implemented. The weakness of the arrangements set up by the Government was illustrated only this week in the statement by Mr Gulliver, who now heads up HSBC. He said that he could not possibly be expected to know what his many thousands of staff were doing. If we are to have a proper accountability mechanism looking from the outside in at what the banks are doing, we need proper internal management systems; otherwise, the whole thing becomes meaningless. Mr Gulliver is therefore hoist by his own petard.

[Helen Goodman]

That is common sense, and that is why the right culture was not encouraged when the Chancellor toddled off to Brussels to defend high bonuses. That did not engender the kind of attitude that we want to see.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady made an important point about Gulliver and the management philosophy that he appeared to espouse. We could call it something pretty close to plausible deniability: “I don’t know what they’re doing in Mexico—it’s a long way away. I don’t know what they’re doing in Switzerland—we’ve only just bought it.” If that is the management model, that is a better advert for the banks being split up than the retail/investment dichotomy that we have spent so long discussing.

[Helen Goodman]

That is another good point from the hon. Gentleman.

What will our constituents think of the fact that last year we saw an increase in the level of bonuses paid by the banks? What is happening at the top of the banks is not the same as what is happening for the ordinary people whom we meet behind the counter. It does not seem reasonable that bonuses are high when we have had high-profile scandals with LIBOR and forex fixing and with the revelations about tax avoidance through Switzerland.

One thing that particularly concerns me about HSBC is the disconnect between the amount of time and energy the bank is clearly prepared to put into setting up special arrangements for its private clients overseas, turning a blind eye to aggressive tax avoidance, and its attitude to my constituents when it wanted to close the branch in Shildon. We have a serious problem with financial exclusion and the major banks are taking themselves out of the poorest communities, leaving them prey to the Wongas of this world. When I wrote to HSBC saying that that was very regrettable and would mean that there was no longer anywhere for people even to access cash in a town with nearly 10,000 citizens, it would not even give a contribution to the local credit union. That shows a degree of arrogance and a lack of social responsibility that I am sure every Member of the House would deplore. I see that even the Exchequer Secretary is shaking her head in disappointment at hearing that.

We need a banking system that provides banking facilities for everybody in this country and for the whole community. Speaking as the Member of this House who was responsible for handling financial exclusion at the end of the previous Government, I think that it is fine to encourage credit unions, which are very nice institutions, but I do not believe that it is credible to believe that they could set up the kind of national network needed to fill the gaps. That is why, once upon a time, we had a more effective post office banking arrangement. We already have an infrastructure, and we already have institutional arrangements. We would do much better to build on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for curtailing his remarks so well. I wish to make two points at the end of this debate. First, the thrust of the motion is to replace a levy on the balance sheet, which is not avoidable or evadable, with a tax on bonuses, which is both those things. It is a bizarre policy. The Opposition seem to have mixed up the real issue, which is the overly high level of remuneration in banks, with the fact that it is split between variable and fixed pay. They appear to think that it is fine to pay someone £3 million a year, but that they should not be paid £2 million with a £1 million bonus, and that the extra bit needs to be taxed much more. That is just wrong. Apart from anything else, that £1 million can be clawed back under our current proposals, and indeed even under the Opposition’s proposals.

The real issue to consider is: what is so unique about the structure of the banking industry that means that banks have to pay so many of their employees so much? The same does not happen in the oil or the pharmaceuticals industries—those companies are worth more than big banks. Earlier, I cited the example of Barclays, which feels the need to pay 1,000 people more than £1 million a year. I am sure that those people work extremely hard, but people in Shell, BP, Glaxo and AstraZeneca work hard, too, and those companies are also world class and world-beating organisations, but they do not have that salary structure. The only explanation is that the market is not working, which is something that both sides of the House should consider when drawing up banking reforms. There is something in the way that investment banks work that stops new entrants coming into the market. I have reflected on this and feel that that is almost certainly the case.

If the chief executive officer of a company is hiring an investment bank, they would not get fired for hiring Goldman Sachs—in the same way that someone in IT would not get fired for hiring IBM. Typically, a CEO will last for only two years in a new company—they do not last long and they do not get many chances. If Goldman Sachs comes along with a big transaction, it bases the price of that transaction not on how much effort it takes to do it but on the 1% increased value in the company. Well, if I am the CEO of Apple and I increase by 1% the value of Apple, which is worth £500 billion a year, and Goldman Sachs gets a slight percentage of that, there is an awful lot of money swilling around. That makes it very hard for new entrants to enter that market.

We all have to address the matter of why it is so hard to get challenger banks into that market, because that is where the abuses occur. The problems do not often occur in the retail sector. We should also address the matter of why it is that so many people need to earn so much, when the shareholders in those organisations do not earn much.

Secondly, I want to reflect on what has happened in HSBC over the last little while. HSBC has been running a management structure that is based on plausible deniability. In Mexico, it has been trading with drug cartels, and it has been involved in evasion in Switzerland and it is saying, “We just did not know that our guys were doing that.” The question is: if its management structure is based on plausible deniability, what is the point of the board and the chief executive? We should think about that, because it provides a better argument for splitting up banks than this dichotomy between retail and investment, because it is, prima facie, a bank that is too big to manage.

Here is the truth of it. The guy who was running the operation in Mexico was told, “This is your target. We don’t really care what you have to do to make it. If you can’t make it, the next guy will.” That is how these banks operate. That is the structure of plausible deniability. That is why we need the cultural change that Ministers on the Front Bench are trying to achieve.