The trade and Industry secretary has announced plans to curb "fat cat" pay-offs for sacked executives.

Patricia Hewitt wants to restrict compensation to six months of salary and allow boards to overrule pay deals to sacked executives.

She is also set to announce curbs on share options so former directors are barred from selling only when the stock market value is high.

Forum Response: GMB

Kevin Curran, GMB general secretary said: "'Fat cat' directors have shown no ability for self-restraint so far and a consultation document with no teeth will certainly not enlighten them. Shareholders, the public and the government have all expressed their disgust at the current excess.

"It has been left to activists to take the cream away from these fat cats and curb their gluttony."Forum Response: Institute of Directors

Ruth Lea, head of the policy unit at the IoD, said: "The IoD will be contributing to the debate on excess pay and will be responding to the government's consultation document in due course.

"However, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, we see this as a matter for shareholders and not further legislation. Shareholders are now more aware of their responsibilities to the firms they own and we would like to see the recently demonstrated shareholder activism given the opportunity to take effect."

Forum Response: Association of British Insurers

A spokesman for the ABI said: "Boards should have a clear and explicit policy on contracts and on how Remuneration Committees will play a primary role. It should include calculation of the cost of severance at the time the contract is drawn up and an approach to implementation which ensures that all payments made on severance take account of performance in relation to objectives set for the departing executive by the board.

"Contracts should be readily available for shareholders to inspect, together with any side letters relating to severance terms and pension arrangements. Shareholders will take account of contracts and the way they are implemented in considering their vote on the remuneration report."

Forum Response: UNIFI

Dai Davies, director of communications for UNIFI, told ePolitix.com: "There has to be some link to the pay of workers generally within the company. Pleading for cost restraint, increasing unachievable targets, paring staff numbers to the bone, cutting back on benefits and increasing hours are not acceptable when balanced against 20/30 per cent pay increases, increased pension provision and guaranteed bonuses for executives.

"We know that this is a tight employment market, but the effect of non-exces determining salaries for directors who possibly sit on remuneration committees themselves is scandalous.

"If the company is 'operating in a difficult environment' they all should suffer the consequences. If facilities are made to protect directors' final salary pension schemes then the same should apply to all staff, if guaranteed bonuses are thought remuneratively beneficial for directors then the same should apply to all staff. Equity, reality and social responsibility should have the desired effect, if not then legislate."

Forum Response: ACCA

Andrew Harding, executive director for ACCA told ePolitix.com: "Despite growing public criticism, capital markets have encouraged as best practice the system of linking the pay of executive directors to corporate performance, through share options and similar devices.

!The concept of payment for performance continues to be widely accepted. When, however, it is applied to the remuneration of senior executives, it may do more than simply encourage good performance. It may also incentivise short-term and self-motivated decisions which are not in the long-term interests of investors.

!The risks inherent in the system have not hitherto been acknowledged. And it has been exacerbated by the short-term perspective of fund managers who are themselves concerned with their own performance relative to market benchmarks.

"ACCA suggests that investors will be better served if performance-related compensation is linked to the longer term generation of corporate wealth.

"There is an obvious conflict between, on the one hand, the pressures of increasingly frequent interim reporting and one year service contracts and, on the other, the need to deliver sustainable investor returns. This might be addressed by the introduction of remuneration schemes which reward sustainable year-on-year growth in profitability and shareholder value.

"The trend towards shorter contractual arrangements may also need to be reviewed and executives should be remunerated in a more transparent way (perhaps necessitating greater disclosure)."