The charity sector has suffered in silence through repeated attacks on its leaders over their pay, but these tactics aren't working, says David Ainsworth. It's time for charities to defend themselves.

On Monday morning The Sun launched a stinging attack on chief executive pay in charities.

It claimed to be based on exclusive research, but it was actually based on commonly available facts and figures. It included a particularly swingeing attack on Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, based on a single photograph of him having a glass of wine. And it also contained an opportunistic reference to the death of Olive Cooke.

The charity sector, however, produced extremely neutral responses. Even the NSPCC offered very mild words, even though its staff must have felt angry at the treatment of their leader and the damage it did to their good name.

This behaviour has been consistently the same since the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail first criticised the sector over pay in 2013. Charities have been very reluctant to fight back.

The same morning, Celina Ribeiro of Fundraising Magazine – one of our group of titles – was asked to appear on LBC Radio at ten minutes’ notice, and did a sterling job arguing down its host, the popular and populist Nick Ferrari, who interrogated her about why charity leaders deserve this money. Unfortunately LBC has put the interview behind a paywall, but if you want to, you can listen here if you want.

But why was it a journalist arguing this, and not a charity chair? Why won’t the sector stand up for itself?

It seems clear that these complaints are not going to go away, as one of our contributors wrote on Monday.

So far the sector’s attempt to counteract the accusations has been to propose changes to annual reports or increases in transparency. But donors are listening to radio shows, not reading annual reports. It is there the sector must put its point of view.

Simply put, charities are not making the case for their behaviour sufficiently well. Until they do, they will continue to be used as punch-bags by the national media.

I feel that if trustees feel they cannot defend the level of pay they set, they should not choose to award that level of remuneration. If they choose to award it, they should defend it.

Obviously one reason that charities do not fight their corner is because they are worried about giving the issue more publicity, and potentially alienating more donors. Trustees are also probably worried about their own reputation.

But I think that’s wrong. Donors and supporters deserve a robust, proactive response, explaining why charities feel they are doing good by paying well.

This is not an issue like fundraising regulation, where there is a clear feeling in some sections of the sector – not least at the FRSB – that charities have a case to answer. This is an issue where the public and the press have got it wrong. Charity workers deserve proper pay. And not just the top brass. Everybody. We should say so.

The arguments Celina advanced against The Sun’s criticisms have been known for a while and are well-rehearsed. The sector should be able to articulate them en masse.

First is simply that expectations of charities are unrealistic. A chief executive of a large charity needs to be a great communicator, a great man manager, skilled at understanding policy, a swift decision maker, and expert in their field. You don’t get those skills for the prices the public want to pay.

Second is that it’s unfair to single out charity employees. Why should they take pay cuts to work in this sector. Why should you get paid less for doing good? If anything you should be paid more.

Third, if there are concerns about pay ratios, it is not charities that should be directed at, but the people who really do pay eye-watering salaries, elsewhere in this economy. It is a debate about high pay altogether we need, not about the efficiency of charities.

The truth is, public trust in charities is being strained, not least because they do not understand how modern charities work. The Understanding Charities Forum was formed to make that case.

I’ve heard too many people in the sector say it’s not necessary, that these attacks blow over and most people never notice, and that trust will remain high.

They may even be right. Headline trust in charities appears very resilient, mostly because the word charity itself is a magical term, almost impossible to tarnish. And most people don’t pay as much attention as you think to what’s in the papers.

I don’t buy this. I don’t think it’s a good idea to keep quiet, not defend yourself, and hope your reputation holds out. But only time will tell if I am right.