- Public Administration Committee Contents


Memorandum from the Institute of Directors

ABOUT THE IOD

  The IoD was founded in 1903 and obtained a Royal Charter in 1906. It is an independent, non-party political organisation of approximately 50,000 individual members. Its aim is to serve, support, represent and set standards for directors to enable them to fulfil their leadership responsibilities in creating wealth for the benefit of business and society as a whole. The membership is drawn from right across the business spectrum. 81% of FTSE 100 companies and 73% of FTSE 350 companies have IoD members on their boards, but the majority of members, some 70%, comprise directors of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), ranging from long-established businesses to start-up companies. IoD members are entrepreneurial and resolutely growth orientated. More than two-fifths export. They are at the forefront of good working practices and have embraced the technology of the new economy.

IOD RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY

  Our responses to the questions posed by the Committee are followed by further IoD data and recommendations.

DIRECT RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

1.   Are the right arrangements in place for setting and monitoring pay and other benefits for top posts in the public sector?

  No.

 (a)   Are they fair?

No.

 (b)   Are they transparent?

No.

 (c)   Do they produce the right results?

No.

 (d)   Do they provide value for money?

No.

 (e)   Do they inspire public and political confidence?

No.

2.   Does there need to be consistency regarding these arrangements between different parts of the public sector?

Not necessarily, what matters is getting the right people to do good jobs and then being completely transparent about the total remuneration (ie salary, bonus, benefits in kind, employer pension contribution etc) they receive. Transparency is certainly one area where there is a damaging lack of consistency at present. For example, government department accounts list directors' remuneration, but local authority accounts do not. There should be full transparency for all public bodies.

3.   Does there need to be comparability of pay between top posts in the public sector and equivalent posts in the private sector?

Some sort of comparability may be useful, but only as a guide. There has to be a risk factor included ie the risk of dismissal for poor performance is much greater in the private sector, and so remuneration should be correspondingly higher in the private sector.

 (a)   If so, how should equivalent posts in the private sector be identified?

Not solely from looking at the City of London and the largest UK companies. It is often argued that public sector executives could walk into City jobs. In some cases this may be true but, for executives who have spent their whole careers in the public sector, it is not obvious that this is the case.

4.   Is there evidence of executive wage inflation caused by public sector organisations competing with one another for candidates?

Yes, although we don't have any systematic evidence. But anecdotally, it is clear that senior civil servants and local authority executives, for example, frequently move from department to department, or from authority to authority, and receive higher remuneration. It is also worth examining reorganisations in, for example, local authorities, which tend to be accompanied by large increases for directors.

5.   What role should consultancies play in the determination of pay for top public sector posts?

None. Using consultants for this purpose is a waste of taxpayers' money and should be done in-house. There is a genuine risk of a form of cartel if the same consultancy advises a number of different public sector organisations.

6.   Is the balance right between executive pay and other benefits? eg bonus, pension

What matters is not the relative size of salary, bonus and pension but whether it is sufficiently tied to proper performance measures. It seems that this is far from the case at the moment.

7.   Do the pay levels for top posts in the public sector have a direct impact on the performance or qualities of the people filling those posts?

Again, it's not about the precise level, but whether pay and conditions are tied to performance, so that good performance is rewarded and poor performance results in dismissal.

 (a)   What impact do the performance or qualities of the people filling top posts in the public sector have on the performance of the organisations for which they work?

As in any organisation, the quality of the leader is crucial to the organisation's success. However, senior civil servants generally operate under greater constraints than private sector executives.

8.   Is there an appropriate benchmark or ceiling for top public sector salaries—eg the salary of the Prime Minister, or a factor of average pay?

It is difficult to say. The old culture of public service would lead to the conclusion that, yes, there should be a ceiling, and that being paid more than the Prime Minister is excessive. A new model, where executives move in and out of the public and private sectors and are much more accountable for their performance, would suggest that such a ceiling would limit the private sector talent that could be brought in. However, we currently seem to be in the worst of all worlds—a disappearing culture of public service, few executives moving between the public and private sectors, insufficient accountability, and high levels of remuneration.

9.   Can England and the United Kingdom learn from the experience of other countries or the devolved governments in this area?

There are lessons to be learnt about transparency from the US. In a number of US states, the salaries of all state employees are available online for anyone to see. We would suggest that this could be adopted across the public sector in the UK for those with remuneration of £50,000 or more. The Obama administration has also frozen the pay of White House staff earning more than $100,000. In the middle of a recession, with increasing numbers of private sector firms agreeing pay freezes, this is a measure that could be followed. When recovery begins, there will need to be a severe fiscal tightening to restore the public finances to balance, and so such a measure could be adopted for senior public sector staff in the UK.

1.  EXISTING DATA ON EXECUTIVE PAY AND BENEFITS

  In addition to our responses to the above questions, the IoD has extensive member survey data on pay and pensions that may be useful when considering the issue. Some sort of comparison can be made with data concerning the public sector.

1.1  Basic pay for an IoD member who is a managing director of a small company (up to £5 million turnover) was £65,000 last year, for a medium-sized company £100,000 and for a large company (£50 million to £500 million turnover) £150,000.[9]

  1.2  54% of IoD members who are managing directors of small companies received a bonus or dividend averaging £24,000 last year. For medium-sized companies the average bonus/dividend was £25,000 received by 61% of managing directors and in large companies the average was £42,000 received by 67% of Managing Directors.[10]

  1.3  In the public sector, executive pay data is rather patchy. The most comprehensive pieces of research on the subject that we are aware of have been conducted by the TaxPayers' Alliance. The organisation's survey of executive pay in local authorities found over 800 executives receiving total remuneration of more than £100,000, including 14 earning more than the Prime Minister and 132 earning more than Cabinet Ministers.[11] Similarly the organisation found that, among 140 government departments and other public bodies surveyed (excluding local authorities), there were almost 400 people receiving total remuneration of more than £150,000 a year, including 21 people earning more than £500,000 and almost 200 earning more than the Prime Minister.[12] This represents strong evidence that executive remuneration in the public sector is more than comparable with that in the private sector.

  1.4  The gap between the public and private sectors with regard to pensions is extremely large. And this applies to executives as well. Almost half (45%) of IoD members (encompassing directors of small, medium and large companies) are not members of an occupational or employer-sponsored pension scheme at all. 12% of directors are members of occupational defined benefit schemes, interestingly, the same proportion as in the private sector as a whole. The remainder of directors are members of occupational defined contribution, group personal pension or employer-sponsored personal and stakeholder pensions.[13]

  1.5  By contrast, in the public sector, 90% of employees are members of defined benefit pension schemes.[14] In terms of individual retirement benefits in the public sector, again as far as we know the TaxPayers' Alliance has undertaken the most comprehensive research, estimating that there are over 17,000 retired public sector employees with retirement benefits worth at least £1 million each.[15]

  1.6  Large bonuses and "golden parachutes" were once the preserve of the private sector. But the evidence suggests that they are on the increase in the public sector, and are not necessarily rewards for good performance.[16] Indeed, it is clear that rewards for failure are not confined to the banking system.

2.  IOD RECOMMENDATIONS

  It is reasonable to argue that executive remuneration in the public sector has got out of line, especially when considered alongside performance. The current recession makes the issue all the more important. In addition to our responses to the questions posed, we would offer the following suggestions to improve the situation.

2.1  First, the important measure to consider is not salary, but total remuneration. Total remuneration should cover such items as salary, bonus, benefits in kind, London allowances, relocation allowances, employer pension contributions and redundancy/early retirement payments. Annual increases of total remuneration should be analysed.

  2.2  Second, we would suggest that the total remuneration, including a detailed breakdown, of all public sector employees with total remuneration of more than £50,000 (certainly all those with total remuneration of more than £100,000) could be published on a central website accessible to the public. The website could allow name searches, allow browsing by public sector organisation (including local authorities and quangos), and keep historical data so that remuneration increases can be tracked, including for individuals who move between organisations. It is important that people receiving large amounts of taxpayers' money be accountable in this way.

  2.3  Third, the level of remuneration should contain a sizeable performance element, although performance should not be simply a box-ticking exercise. This must be accompanied by loss of performance pay or dismissal for poor performance. Too often, bonuses of equal amounts are paid out to the directors of a public sector organisation, which suggests that individual performance is not monitored.

  2.4  Fourth, it should be recognised that the risk of dismissal is far lower in the public sector than in the private sector (notwithstanding the above recommendation) and that executive remuneration should therefore be lower in the public sector to compensate for this reduced risk.

  2.5  Fifth, the severe fiscal crunch that will be required to restore the pubic finances after the recession is over presents a great opportunity for reform of the current arrangements. Indeed, a performance bonus for permanent secretaries, conditional on the individual's success in reducing administration and overhead costs without cutting frontline services, would be a positive development. Similarly, an incentive to deliver savings on regulatory burdens for businesses would be a very useful aid to economic recovery.

  Thank you once again for inviting the Institute of Directors to participate in this inquiry. We hope you find our comments useful. We would be very happy to give oral evidence if required. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

March 2009





















9   IoC/Croner Rewards Survey, November 2008. Back

10   Ibid. Back

11   TaxPayers' Alliance, "Town Hall Rich List 2008", March 2008. Back

12   TaxPayers' Alliance, "Public Sector Rich List 2008", November 2008. Back

13   IoD survey of approximately 1,000 members, February 2009. In 2007, the latest year for which data is available, there were 2.7 million members of occupational defined benefit pension schemes in the private sector, just under 12% of the 23.4 million private sector workers in that year (sources: Office for National Statistics, "Occupational Pension Schemes Annual Report 2007", September 2008, Table 3.3; Office for National Statistics, "Public Sector Employment Q3 2008", December 2008, Table 5-includes private sector employment data). It is interesting that membership of DB pension schemes follows the same pattern among private sector directors as among their employees. Back

14   Office for National Statistics, "Occupational Pension Schemes Annual Report 2007", September 2008, Table 3.4; Office for National Statistics, "Public Sector Employment Q3 2008", December 2008, Table 5. Back

15   TaxPayers' Alliance, "The UK Pensions Crisis", November 2008. Back

16   To give two examples, in 2007 the former chairman of HMRC, Paul Gray, resigned following the department's loss of millions of child benefit records. He was paid £137,000 for his departure. David Higgins, the chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, was paid a performance-related bonus of £205,000 in 2007-08, despite the budget for the Games rising to over £9 billion (source: TaxPayers' Alliance, "Public Sector Rich List 2008", November 2008). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 21 December 2009