Bob Diamond a rough Diamond? Pull the other one What a pity they didn't spell that out to MPs. Barclays says the board never discussed the matter because Mr Diamond had already opted to give up his payoff - and no wonder. If ever there was a man jumping before he was pushed, this is it. To suggest that he offered to forgo the cash is like saying you've volunteered to give up a lottery win when you've lost the ticket. It's all very well our MPs, and their committees, attempting to unravel the dark deeds of bankers and others, but what can they actually do about it? The question is being asked more and more, and has now been addressed in a fascinating paper by Robert Rogers, the Clerk of the Commons, and Parliament's most senior official. The Commons" old powers to fine or imprison have long since fallen into disuse, and nobody has been brought to the Bar of the House to apologise since the journalist John Junor in 1957. Mr Rogers, alive to the law of unintended consequences, is against reviving demands for such public contrition. He says MPs would "risk looking like a lynch mob," adding: "The Speaker stands and delivers a rebuke at a range of some 30 yards. Then what? The individual at the Bar, in prime TV time, may decide to have a go at the House... or perhaps produces some surprise piece of evidence which makes it clear that the House has got it wrong. The result could be reputational disaster. Mr Rogers's suggestion? To make greater use of the powerful moral effect of a resolution of the whole House. He suggests a "tariff of misbehaviour," eg declaring someone unfit to hold public office, or to be a director of a public company - or to run a bank. Such resolutions could not be challenged in the courts, and probably not under European human rights law, either. Technically, they could not be used to ban someone - but in practice, no regulator would allow anyone condemned by the Commons to continue in post. Subtle, cheap and effective. Talking of prime-time TV, since 2006 Mr Agius has been a non-executive director of the BBC. I am told that when he arrived, he expressed himself forcefully on the subject of top people's pay. The gist, according to unconfirmed reports, was that BBC executives were not paid enough: their "low" salaries showed they didn't take themselves seriously as world players. It seems he was most convincing. Soon, the pay of the director-general, Mark Thompson, had rocketed to £816,000. Yet some at the BBC felt uneasy - notably those who felt that it was actually a privilege to work there and that the old pay levels had been perfectly adequate. Thanks to executive wage inflation, says one insider, "everything we were criticised for - such as the Russell Brand affair - became even more toxic." In the end, Mr Thompson took a pay cut to £622,000 - and George Entwistle, the new man, is having to make do with £450,000. Everyone is happier. Apart, of course, from those with bankers" values. Like Mr Agius.