William Shawcross is right. Charity executive pay should be proportionate and fair. In fact, it already is, argues Celina Ribeiro. The scandal is that this 'scandal' will deter good leaders from the charity sector.

I agree with William Shawcross’ comments on charity executive pay. Absolutely. 100 per cent.

In today’s Telegraph ‘expose’ on the salaries of executives at international aid charities which are members of the Disasters Emergency Committee, Shawcross was asked to comment on the fact that now some 30 executives at those 14 charities receive incomes in excess of £100,000.

In the context of his interview, the Charity Commission chair is reported to have said: “Trustees should consider whether very high salaries are really appropriate, and fair to both donors and the taxpayers who fund charities… Disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute.”

Spot on. Hit the nail on the head.

However, where I would disagree is on a rather critical point, an inference, really.  

These salaries are not disproportionate. These salaries are proportionate, appropriate and fair.

I’ve done some number-crunching myself. Combined, these 14 charities in 2012 (or the year ending within 2012) were responsible for £1.73bn of income. Raising, stewarding and spending £1.73bn of income – within just 14 organisations – is a mammoth task. Huge. One requiring an extraordinary amount of leadership, responsibility, skill, experience and expertise – and the last time I checked, these are precisely the basis for remunerating any staff, anywhere.

By the way, that £1.73bn in income in 2012 – that was up £100m on the previous year. In a recession. A feat, I would argue, worthy of proportionate, appropriate and fair financial reward.

Are charity executives rewarded by more than their salaries? Yes. Of course they are. They are making the world the better place. Their decision to focus their skills and experience on working for good – as opposed to for banks, food companies, law firms and the like – should not be to their financial detriment. They should not attempt to compete with the private sector, wherein one may argue oftentime wages are neither proportionate nor appropriate, but - essentially – you get what you pay for.

If we value the work that charities do, if we believe that Save the Children and the British Red Cross are important and effective organisations, then we need to value those people who take that responsibility on their shoulders.

Now this is an argument made well and repeatedly in the charity sector. It is one that many of our civilsociety.co.uk readers will be more than familiar with. And it is an argument which needs to be proactively pushed out to the wider world as a whole.

So it is a surprise that the chair of the Charity Commission would be airing statements on pay which would appear more at home with the views of a casual observer who believes that charities - which are immunising hundreds of thousands, responding to large-scale humanitarian crises in the world’s most politically and physically challenging environments, which are making our planet a safer and more equitable place for every one within it – are run by volunteers and do-gooders willing to accept a low wage for their passions, expertise and efforts.

I don’t expect Shawcross to be an advocate of the charity sector. That is not his job. He is a regulator, and he should be judged on how well the sector is regulated. However, it is comments such as his which “risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute”. Not the fact that the man who leads an organisation which turns over more than £200m a year is paid £184,000 a year.

That is not the scandal. 

The scandal is that comments like those from Shawcross, and the helpful Conservative MP Priti Patel who cried that money must not "line the pockets of unaccountable charity executives" will deter talent in the future.

What aspirational and skilled person would put themselves forward to lead an organisation which is working to improve the world, when they know - at any low point in the news cycle - they will be pilloried for their salary? That this story, and one which comes from someone responsible for regulating charities, could deter talent from the leadership of charities in the future is the real front-page story here.

You know what? £184,000 is a big salary. But you know what else? Saving the lives of thousands of innocent people in disasters is a big problem. It's not worth scrimping.