Gent survives protest vote over pay at Vodafone

Almost 10 per cent of Vodafone shareholders voted against the company's remuneration policy at the company annual meeting yesterday as a protest against the controversial pay package of Sir Christopher Gent, the mobile phone group's chief executive.

The vote came as several Vodafone shareholders criticised the company on pay, performance and its dividend policy. One shareholder received a round of applause when he said: "More time is spent on remunerating failings rather than improving the company and the share price."

Sir Christopher's package could see him awarded bonuses and shares worth up to £3.9m on top of his £1.2m basic salary. This follows a year in which Vodafone reported Britain's biggest ever corporate loss of £13.5bn after asset write-downs and saw its share price plunge.

Another shareholder said: "People up there [on the directors' podium] are feathering their own nests at our expense. Trim some of the bonuses and increase the dividend. There is discrimination against the shareholder."

Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth, the Vodafone chairman who resigned yesterday as head of the England and Wales Cricket Board, defended the pay issue: "I really had hoped this subject had been put to bed by now."

The poll showed that 9.5 per cent of shareswere voted against the pay policy with 84.5 per cent in favour with the rest made up of abstentions. Tom Powdrill, the institutional investment officer for the TUC, said the number of proxy votes against Vodafone's pay policy was much higher than he had been expecting. "It is a significant vote against. A number of institutional managers have been won over but almost one in 10 have still voted against."

During the meeting Lord MacLaurin lambasted the media for its criticism of Vodafone and he moved to address concerns over the company's financial health.

"We have been compared with companies like Enron and WorldCom. Incredibly, we have even been asked 'is Vodafone going bust?' Of course it isn't. Our balance sheet has passed the most rigorous analysis. These comparison are odious and damaging."