Any investor in the construction sector must have read Sir Michael Latham’s article “In defence of Peter” (17 September, page 31) with dismay bordering on disbelief, particularly his final paragraph regarding the general public’s “envious carping about salaries of industry leaders”.

The appointment of a director of any company is surely to strengthen the strategic direction of that organisation with the intention of raising its value in the market place. The remuneration package should be a direct result of the effectiveness of not only the individual but the total board. The totally legitimate concern over salaries versus performance comes predominantly from shareholders who believe that managing directors and CEOs of both limited and publicly quoted companies have failed to deliver value to their investors, and yet continue to award themselves salaries that would suggest they are delivering considerable value. Greed is the “unattractive aspect of modern Britain”, not the scrutiny of industry leaders’ pay packages.

If I were an investor in Willmott Dixon, I would also query how Sir Michael can combine his main job as deputy chairman of Willmott Dixon with “several days a week” spent working as chairman of the CITB. Like so many of us in the construction industry, he obviously works 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Andrew Dale-Harris, via email