by Stephen Tall on March 2, 2009
The debate has raged all over the weekend about what exactly the Government should do (if anything) about the £650,000 per year pension to which Sir Fred Goodwin, former chief executive of RBS, is entitled thanks to a deal struck with the bank’s board and later sanctioned by the government when it became a majority owner.
Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman provoked a media storm when she suggested that the government might introduce legislation specifically to claw back a large part of Sir Fred’s pension. Meanwhile, Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable has put forward his own proposal: that Sir Fred simply be paid £27,000 a year, the maximum available to employees of bankrupt companies under the Pension Protection Fund.
Over to LDV’s readers to try and answer the question: How do you think the issue of Sir Fred Goodwin’s £650,000 a year RBS pension should be resolved?
Here are your options:
>> The government should legislate to claw back a large part of Sir Fred’s pension
>> The government should instruct that Sir Fred be paid a minimum amount, and he should sue if he wants his full entitlement.
>> The government should abide by the agreement entered into between Sir Fred and RBS and sanctioned by its own business minister.
>> Don’t know / Other
Let debate re-commence …
PS: seemed rather pointless to poll the question, “Do you think Sir Fred is entitled to his £650,000 a year RBS pension?” I’m guessing a majority would probably say ‘No’. But if anyone does want to advance that particular line, do feel free to mount the write-in campaign below.