Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Top pay rule 'crackers'

Patrick Hosking
Saturday 02 December 1995 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

SIR Richard Greenbury, chairman of the Greenbury committee on top pay, has broken his silence in the wake of its controversial report and described one consequence of his recommendations as "crackers".

Sir Richard, the chairman of Marks and Spencer, mounted a strong defence of the committee and rejected accusations that some of its recommendations had been emasculated.

But he said one key recommendation had to be changed. The original formula for calculating the true value of pension benefits awarded to top directors would have produced perverse results, he said.

"It's crackers," he remarked. "It wouldn't have made sense to people." Sir Richard revealed that the proposed formula had been tested on real examples, including directors of M&S. Last year, the pension entitlements of three directors would apparently have shrunk.

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has now been asked to look at adjustments to the formula to smooth out some of the more extreme figures.

Two Greenbury committee members, Geoff Lindey, chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, and Tim Melville-Ross, head of the Institute of Directors, have expressed alarm about this change and an apparent modification to the rules on long-term bonus schemes.

Sir Richard denied this would water down his original recommendations. "We're not watering anything down," he said. "What we want is a system that is transparent."

He also queried Mr Lindey's claim 10 days ago that "powerful voices" were trying to block Greenbury. "If there are, I don't know who they are," Sir Richard said.

He played down the significance of changes to the rules on bonus schemes. The principle of shareholder approval would now be in place, he said. "At the end of the day, there's always going to be some smart-arse getting round whatever you do."

Explaining that he had been "out of action for eight weeks" because of a hip operation, Sir Richard said: "For six months I got slagged off because I was a fat cat, with everyone saying it would be a weak shilly-shallying report. Now I read that the report is so tough, so draconian, that British business is looking for ways to get around it."

He said people should be patient: "Judge it in 1997. Give it a year or two."

Any final decision on the pension formula is months away. Raymond Paul, secretary to the pensions board of the IFA, said it would issue its suggestions to interested parties by Christmas.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in