On the day the Banking Commission publishes its 571 page report Changing Banking for Good  Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott asks "Why are there no banged-up bankers?".
Key recommendations

    A new Senior Persons Regime, replacing the Approved Persons Regime, to ensure that the most important responsibilities within banks are assigned to specific, senior individuals so they can be held fully accountable for their decisions and the standards of their banks in these areas;
    A new licensing regime underpinned by Banking Standards Rules to ensure those who can do serious harm are subject to the full range of enforcement powers;
    A new criminal offence for Senior Persons of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank, carrying a custodial sentence;
    A new remuneration code better to align risks taken and rewards received in remuneration, with much more remuneration to be deferred and for much longer;
    A new power for the regulator to cancel all outstanding deferred remuneration, along with unvested pension rights and loss of office or change of control payments, for senior bank employees in the event of their banks needing taxpayer support, creating a major new incentive on bankers to avoid such risks.

It is difficult to see how a bonus deferred for a period up to 10 years will provide the sort of immediate incentive most bankers (and indeed employers) would say are necessary to be effective. A further recommendation relates to placing financial safety ahead of the interests of shareholders. It will also be interesting to see how this  proposed erosion of the principles of capitalism by putting financial safety ahead of shareholders' interests will work in practice. Is this likely to be extended into other industries if there is a political scandal affecting them?

Given the regret of the Commission that no senior bank officials are facing criminal responsibility for recent scandals presumably they would reply to Lord Oakeshott's question of "Why are there no banged-up bankers" - It's bonkers?