Sir Bob Kerslake turns down cash as agency hits its building targets
HCA chief refuses £44,000 bonus
The chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency turned down a £44,000 bonus this year.
Sir Bob Kerslake qualified for the bonus after a year in which the HCA launched early and hit key house building targets.
A spokesperson for the agency confirmed Sir Bob had decided it was not right for him to take home the extra cash because of the tightening of public finances and the ongoing recession. Sir Bob qualified for his full bonus entitlement, which represents 20 per cent of his £220,000 salary.
The news emerged in the same week the HCA published its annual accounts and financial statements for 2008/09. The figures reveal the agency incurred a £542 million impairment charge last year as the value of its development assets fell by £1.1 billion.
The drop is attributed to the HCA’s predecessor English Partnerships. The agency was also hit by a £12.6 million pound loss in November 2008 after a developer became insolvent. Before the developer was placed into administration the HCA exercised its step-in rights to seize the land, and regain assets to the value of £2.4 million.
Sir Bob said: ‘The insolvency relates to a deal with English Partnership and when you consider the number of commercial deals it had, pretty much 100 per cent went through to conclusion.’
The HCA said neither the drop in the value of its land nor the charge would have any impact on its ability to achieve its aims or meet house building targets.
The report states the body met its key targets, completing 53,843 new and affordable homes for rent or sale over the accounting period. Work has begun work on 44,472 new and affordable properties for rent or sale.
It also reclaimed 327 hectares of brownfield land, created 450,487 square metres of employment floorspace, and attracted £1.035 billion of private sector investment. The value of the HCA’s net assets stood at £1 billion on 31 March 2009.
The body’s net expenditure for the year rose by £1.4 billion to £4.3 billion, which the HCA attributed to its efforts to maintain programme momentum and the supply of new homes.
Sir Bob added: ‘We have been through tough times but overall our progress has been pretty strong and we are pleased with it.’
Bright start
HCA 2008/09 annual report
53,843
New and affordable homes for rent or sale completed
44,472
Number of new and affordable homes for rent or sale started
£1.035 billion
Amount of private sector investment attracted into the sector
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (29)
Bernard Townroe | 13/11/2009 7:06 am
The scale of the salaries for senior executives is so far above any ordinary human being to make the focus on bonuses nothing more than a diversion. I'm sure quite a few executives are finding new and interesting ways for 'bonuses' to be recategorised as something else to show how they're making great sacrifices in these troubled times.
Many of us rather closer to the sharp end of the recession, and on rather more average income levels, have seen pay cut, yet the pay of senior individuals continues to defy gravity. Are we supposed to regard any surrender of a bonus as magnaminous, part of the 'we're all in it together' line when their basic pay is at such a high level already?
I find it ironic that many of those screaming about bonuses, have little to say about salaries (unless they're paid to evil 'quangocrats'), particularly in the City, but manage to find the time to oppose at every turn an increase in the Minimum Wage or any public sector worker looking for, by comparison, a miniscule increase in their own pay. As with housing, I suppose, it depends on what you define as 'affordable'.
Just how do people manage to get by on salaries as modest as £220,000 p.a.?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 13/11/2009 8:21 am
I do think it is decent of him to refuse a £44,000 pound bonus though.
It shows he lacks greed and as we know greed is not good.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 13/11/2009 8:33 am
Come on, at least a little credit is due, it may be a sop, but equally he could have easily took the money. Damned if you do.........
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DavidJ | 13/11/2009 9:23 am
As Harry says "Damned if you do"
It's all part of life I'm afraid. Is someone on £20k per year going to see £40k per year as excessive? Or even seomone on £40k looking at someone on £70k. The fact of the matter is you need to atract the right caliblre of person to carry out what in some cases is a complex and demanding position. £220k for oversing a budget responsibility of £4.3bn is not excessive in my eyes.
Just because there are people out in the wider world who are in a less fortunate position than the majority of society, does that mean everyone else has to suffer also?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Matthew Fulford | 13/11/2009 10:09 am
I agree with David J - Sir Bob's salary is a bargain comparative to many other agencies..
I think, if he met his targets, he is due a bonus and shouldn't feel hen pecked into not taking it up. If a banker, in a government funded bank (that failed), can still stick his nose in the trough why can't a government funded quango CEO who has argueably delivered take his (not excessive) sweetner??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 13/11/2009 10:58 am
I have yet to see this ethos of paying high salaries to attract the right calibre of person to do the any job in an organisation, especially in public service, has any moral credence. There is no credible evidence to suggest that any of these officers actually substantiate their worth in monetary terms or that they even generate real income or benefit for the staff or customers.
I am of view that the difference in salary in a public organisation between the lowest paid and highest (full time) should not be more than seven times.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Willie25 | 13/11/2009 11:07 am
Peter
"I am of view that the difference in salary in a public organisation between the lowest paid and highest (full time) should not be more than seven times."
This is very precise. Where did this great piece of wisdom come from?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/11/2009 11:20 am
I disagree with those who say to be a CEO is a more complex job than being let's say a housing officer.
It requires different skills that's all. Put the all CEOs to work as Housing Officers for a year, and I am sure they will not deliver anything better than Housing Officers would (and most likely much worse results in tackling the complexity of being a housing officer.)
For those who insist CEOs got to be paid so much because of the complexity of their job is far superior that that a Housing Officer, well then what about the complexity of being Prime Minister? And why should any CEO get paid more than the PM then?
About those who say that a CEO has to be paid a lot because she works very hard, well then how much harder that is from the work of a busy Housing Officer? If the CEO does overtime than all she should get is the overtime, that's all.
And for those who go about reminding everybody else that people work in social housing mainly to help others (I hope they mean us tenants, by the way) have not these CEOs got into social housing for the same reasons then? And if they are there just to help other why would they want to be paid so much more than anybody else trying to do the same?
However and whichever way you look at it, high salaries beyond a certain level have no justification but pure unrestrained greed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 13/11/2009 1:07 pm
Well I would argue that a CEOs skills are vastly different from a Housing Officers. Nothing against HOs here at all, but their skills are specific for their job. Put an average HO in charge of an RSL and that RSL would fall. CEOs are more than just figureheads... they have vast experience across the board in Housing issue, asset management, Finance and Works etc.
It is the complexity which earns the salary. Its not just different skills - its massively MORE skills.
It is the responsibility for all your staff and every single tenant that earns the salary.
Its making the unpopular decisions which have to be made for the continued success.
Frankly their salaries are set by their boards which should be made up of Tenant Members. They get paid what the board agree to pay. There is a certain element of truth in paying peanuts and getting monkeys. You pay the market rate. The market rate maybe wrong but if there are companies paying it then thats the market rate!
4.3bn is a massive, uncomprehendable amount of money. £220k seems fairly low for that level of responsibility.
As for comparing with the PM... well I don't see Tony Blair on the breadline - thats right he's a millionaire. Being PM gets doors and wallets opening.
Maybe if we paid the PM more he'd be less inept?!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DavidJ | 13/11/2009 1:26 pm
Kass - I started lif as a housing officer, and entered the realm of supported housing becasue of my belief in what I do, however I still have that belief (a genuine one as well) yet I fail to see why that should stop me or any other person involved in housing from being rewarded for the years of hard work, learning, additional skills, and experience gained after time within the sector.
If it was purely for the money (at any level) then I would leave, go into the private sector and easily increase my income threefold. I also have colleagues and personal friends who have worked their way through the organisations where they work through determineation, hard work and a belief in what they do. I fail to see the connection between career aspirations and personal interests in helping others less fortunate.
Forget minimum wages, what about a maximum!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment