UK: We Must Not Conflate Governance With Democracy

Last Updated: 15 February 2017
Article by Henry Ker

Giles Peel discusses his career in the armed forces and his decision to move into governance, the dangers of undermining the unitary board system and the value of the secretariat.

Giles is Head of Governance Advisory Practice at DAC Beachcroft and a retired Royal Navy Captain.



Could you tell us about your career in the Royal Navy?

I joined straight from school as a university cadet. I then went to university in London and during the vacations came back to sea. I spent 20 years as a full career Royal Navy Supply and Secretariat Officer – now called a Logistics Officer. I served all over the world and from time to time in Whitehall too. I ended up as a Royal Navy Captain and then decided to leave early to start a second career in governance.

What prompted that decision?

I had always wanted to work in business of some sort, so although I was always going to spend a good chunk of time in the navy, it seemed a sensible thing to do to prepare for after that. Having done the ICSA qualification I wanted to try and use it while I was still relatively young, so I made a decision to leave before I was 40. I left at 39 years and six months – just in time to meet that target!

In my day you began a full career at the age of 18 – you could apply to serve for 30 plus years. Nowadays you have to sign on for a series of periods of time. So it is even more important today to have some notion about what you might do when you leave.

Back then it was considered odd to leave at the age of 39. Nowadays there are breakpoints when you are in your late 20s and 30s. You have to be focused on having a set of skills that you develop in the military, so that you have a choice when you get to those breakpoints.

Could you tell us about your experience of studying to become a chartered secretary?

It was not easy – the exams are difficult. One of the attractions and the detractions of being a chartered secretary is that it requires you to be numerate and literate and our education system still streams you into one or other of those things. So to do something that actually stretched both, and in terms of company law and financial accounting, seemed to me to be a good thing – and that was the main appeal.

I did the studying on my own, which meant understanding the syllabus, reading the books, shutting myself away for months at a time, prepping for the exams and then turning up to London to sit the papers.

In one morning, I landed from a ship to get on the train to London and sit the exam. It was not an easy way of doing it, but because of the life I was leading there was no other way. I did one course with the Kensington School of Business. That was a mix of distance learning and turning up on Saturday mornings for an eight-hour financial accounting session, which I did for about three or four months – it required a lot of discipline.

The thing I found most useful as a test on how I was doing was reading the Lex column in the Financial Times – being at sea, occasionally a bunch of newspapers would be dropped off. If I could understand more than half of what they were talking about, I felt I was progressing.

Do you feel that members of the armed forces are a natural fit for governance or secretariat roles?

I was in a specialisation that was intrinsically based on high-quality administrative skills and staff work (as the military call it). I have been an ADC (aide-de-camp) to an admiral, an executive assistant to another senior person and I have worked in the Ministry of Defence where high levels of skill, negotiation and analysis are required. So the skills I learned lent themselves to the secretariat very well.

It is not a clear cut thing, because plenty of young people now want to join the forces to serve in exciting places, to get themselves into slightly sticky situations, and therefore administration and governance are not necessarily the bedfellows for the young service man or woman.

But there is no doubt that if you want to make more of a career of governance, if you get towards the administrative side of government – which in the Ministry of Defence you do – then you learn very important skills.

I also believed that if I was going to compete with civil service colleagues for jobs – and there is a lot of competition for jobs within uniform and non-uniform people – then having the ICSA qualification gave me an edge because I was able to say I had strong commercial qualification (and I do view this as a commercial qualification).

I have done a Part 3 accounting exam and an equivalent law exam, so I could hold my own with Treasury officials and people like that. Today that is as relevant now as it was then.

Does the armed forces experience governance issues in the same way as businesses and charities?

In areas such as financial decision-making undoubtedly there is a lot of similarity. Anything to do with the infamous planning process in the Ministry of Defence, procurement and major contracts, there are similarities too. But it is also about being able to relate to the fact that the civil service must act in a more governed way and therefore anything you can do to hold up the uniformed end of it is a good thing.

What advice would you give to members of the armed forces who are planning their second career after the services?

There are some parts of the job finding process that are difficult, so I would make use of the resettlement facilities that you are offered when you leave − things like CV writing and skills analysis.

I would spend a proportion of your time every year that you serve thinking about what next. Cliff-edge planning does nobody any favours. I found I was much more comfortable about staying longer once I had become a chartered secretary, because I knew I had alternatives.

You are now Head of Governance Advisory Practice at DAC Beachcroft. What do you think are the biggest governance challenges for organisations?

It is a fast moving world and we are constantly on the edge of having an overburden of regulation. On the one hand you have demanding investors, shareholders, stakeholders, and on the other and you have an assertive regulatory regime that is trying to police that.

So undoubtedly directors are more pressurised with the greater breadth of compliance and governance knowledge required than in the past. But governance has to remain practical and agile. A lot of what I do is to try and deliver pragmatic solutions for my clients which enable them to comply, but do not stop them from doing their day job.

I always felt governance was an enabler; I still feel that now. Well-governed organisations undoubtedly do better – it is not a coincidence that a well-organised company tends to flourish.
I have been lucky to work in a number of different jobs; this is my fourth since I left the navy.

I have also built a non-executive portfolio too. All of that is possible because I understand how organisations work and I can contribute to that. Undoubtedly the armed forces gave me the confidence to be able to believe I could do that.

I have worked hard in the past 15 years to gain the experience that I lacked when I left. If you serve for the amount of time I did, you have to be ready to come across bosses who are younger than you and who probably have less experience than you.

Regarding your submission to the BEIS Select Committee inquiry, you said that moves to put onerous responsibility onto NEDs, through the SMR and SIMR, are unhelpful. Could you outline your concerns?

I am passionate about the principle of collective responsibility for boards and in law there is no difference between the liabilities of a non-executive versus an executive. Albeit the non-executive does have, in some circumstances, a degree of mitigation, because they do not necessarily have enough operational understanding of the workings of the organisation.

The SMR and SIMR are pushing some non-executives to be more responsible for the inner workings, and the two roles they have quoted most are the chair of the audit committee and the chair of the remuneration committee.

We have already seen the notion that those types of NEDs are going to be paid more and that is starting to translate into reality out there. But, that somehow they have a greater accountability and should take more interest in the operational running of a business seems to me to start greying what has been, up to now, a reasonably well-understood distinction between non-executive and executive.

One of the challenges I have tried to address with organisations like the FRC is that I would like to see it making more noise about this, because if we have categorisation of NEDs, we are no longer in the same ballpark of collective responsibility. You will get NEDs who want that responsibility, that profile and that regulatory extra scrutiny. You will get NEDs that do not want it. I am not sure we want two tiers of NEDs.

Regarding proposals for worker representation on boards, you said the idea is superficially attractive and 'it is wrong to conflate governance with democracy'. Could you elaborate?

Most people acknowledge that liberal capitalism is in trouble at the moment, because there is no doubt there is corporate excess. The traditional press targets the 'fat cats' reward for failure' and so on. You do not have to look far to find examples of that. The spirit therefore of saying there should be greater connectivity between a board and senior executives and the workforce is entirely right.

We can see an example of this in the concept of NHS Foundation Trusts, where staff governors have a right through a history of election and appointment to take a greater interest in the affairs of the boards and, in particular, the conduct and the efficacy of non-executive directors.

However, the staff governors may potentially find themselves in an invidious position, because they often know stuff through their day jobs that they cannot share with their fellow governor colleagues and feel pressurised to do that. Then, equally, there is a danger that they become apologists for the board or the management back in their day jobs. You cannot win in those ways.

There are European examples of worker representation, but I suspect if you are to talk to our equivalent corporate secretaries in the European sphere, they would say that there are massive levels of bureaucracy.

The fact that the Prime Minister appears to have lessened her charge on this is sensible. We have got to find ways of holding people to account so that where there are disparate levels of remuneration in an organisation, it must be justified. Where there is reward for failure, that should be targeted.

Whether or not appointing individuals to sit on a board to be the eyes and ears and the mouthpiece for the workforce, and then have to go back and justify themselves to their own colleagues is the answer, I am not sure.

Another area I have done a lot of work on is conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest in company law are quite clear; they must be avoided. There are other sectors where that is blurred – for example, under the health legislation, a clinical commissioner group governing body member or a GP has to manage their conflict to avoid them. So we end up in the realm where people are jumping in and out of the boardroom as decisions are being made.

This relates to my point about the practicality of governance, because somebody has to make the decision. Even if people are conflicted, if the board has got itself to a position where it can recognise and declare the conflicts, but also recognises the imperative of a sensibly made decision, then authorisation, which company law permits, should drive that through.

I am much more interested in organisations that realise the responsibility in timely decision making, even if there are some conflicts present. If they can work their way through those and still make a decision, nine times out of ten that has got to be better for the organisation than constantly throwing people out of rooms and never quite getting to a quorum.

From your experience as a governance adviser, are there any common cross-sector governance problems?

Boards establishing a cultural set of values and monitoring that is a constant challenge. A disconnection between board and workforce is a common theme in lots of areas.

Non-executives who are out of their comfort zone, and therefore for various reasons become slightly more timid, is another one. I am always quite intrigued when in their day jobs those non-executives are executives and therefore bullish. When translating those relevant experiences to a different sector or a different type of industry, a lot of people seem to find it hard and they become more reticent.

Is that because they are not putting in the time with the organisation or do not understand it well enough?

It is because there is a degree of deference that goes on when someone comes into a new environment. But if companies and charities, or any other kind of board, take the time to induct people properly, that should be overcome. Often the induction process is inadequate, because you find people one or two years down the line are still slightly nervous about giving a strong opinion.

You were Policy Director at ICSA between 2003 and 2007. How has the profession and the governance sector changed since then?

The profile is much higher and the ICSA has done a very good job with that. There is recognition in a world of complexity that the general skills in numeracy and literacy that chartered secretaries can bring to a boardroom or to an organisation are worth their weight in gold.

It is interesting that the officers of the company remain as important. The general counsel and the company secretary remain pivotal, even though in the Companies Act of 2006, which came in when I was at ICSA, we were worried that we were losing ground as the requirement for all companies to have a company secretary was removed.

But we have not lost ground in any way – rather we have gained it. Most organisations, even if they do not think they need a company secretary, recognise they need a chief administrative officer or similar. Now there is no other qualification that comes anywhere near ours in giving people the skills for that – I am very proud of it.

What do you think governance will look like in years to come?

If we get it wrong it will be a series of dreadfully imposing regulations which come out of kilter with the basis of company law and charity law. That is what we have to fear, that the regulation becomes more draconian than the legislation.

If we get it right, the broad principle of comply or explain should remain and be strengthened, and the profession has a role in making sure the explanation is as valid as the compliance.

Interview by Henry Ker, Deputy Editor, Governance and Compliance

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.