The great succession of pay scandals will only come to an end when some of the assumptions that lie behind the setting of executive remuneration are challenged and exposed as wrong.

Fallacy one is that it is agreed that remuneration committees are helpful. They are, but only to executives who, no longer party to decisions, are free to press for what they want. Their former restraint becomes unnecessary. Does the evidence support the contention that remuneration committees have held pay in check?