Title

The evidence on councillor remuneration shows how it is treated as a technical detail, rather than a democratic one. Yet, the way we compensate councillors goes to the heart of participation in local government, and how effectively councils function.In England, the current system is built on locally determined allowances. Each council sets its own scheme within 2006 national guidance, recommended by an Independent Remuneration Panel and shaped by local priorities and political sensitivities.In practice, this seeming commitment to localism produces striking inconsistencies, such that average basic allowances ranged from £7,404 in the East of England to £12,733 in Yorkshire and the Humber in 2024-25.There is an increasingly clear mismatch between the role councillors perform and the way they are rewarded.INLOGOV's new report, which I co-authored with emeritus professor Colin Copus and Ray Tomkinson, reviews new evidence and independent analysis by Tomkinson and examines international academic research. We demonstrate that councillors' work does not align with the assumptions of the current remuneration system.The estimated total cost in 2024-25 of just under £230m is not inconsequential and raises the question: ‘Is it generating the right outcomes?'.While many allowance frameworks are based on part-time expectations, councillors typically report spending more than 20 hours a week on their duties, with some contributing time equivalent to a full-time role. This is not marginal civic volunteering, it is sustained, responsible work in complex organisations managing major public services.Despite this, the principle of a ‘public service discount' still underpins what is sometimes becoming a full-time role. Councillors are expected to be paid less than a market rate because of the ‘voluntary' or civic nature of the office. Civic responsibility here reflects the Victorian assumption that local representation was a fiduciary, rather than democratic relationship. Now it simply does not match the expectations and realities of the office.Allowance levels have not kept pace with inflation and there is wide variation between allowances in councils doing broadly similar work. Financial barriers shape who can stand for, and who can afford to remain in, office. Individuals in full-time employment, those without independent means, and people with caring responsibilities, all face structural disincentives.While most councils offer carers' allowances and some permit parental leave, these are unevenly implemented and often underused. Such underuse reflects not just design issues, but culture. If financial support is treated as exceptional rather than integral, it will not provide sufficient support for the pool of potential councillors.The international picture, including other parts of the UK, show the menu of approaches available. Indeed, some countries have moved towards salaried models, particularly for executive roles. These systems recognise that local political leadership is skilled and demanding work.There is no single correct model and no definitive evidence linking pay structures to better service outcomes. But evidence shows remuneration influences participation and is a tool for widening the pool of potential candidates and encouraging participation.Local democracy depends not just on who is elected, but on who feels able to stand. If the system indirectly favours retirees, the independently wealthy, or those in flexible professional roles, it limits the perspectives brought into decision-making. That matters for legitimacy as much as for effectiveness.The challenge is not simply to increase allowances, but to rethink the framework. We need greater clarity about the time commitment expected of councillors and more consistency in how that is converted into remuneration. Clearer national guidance could help, without undermining local discretion. Better data would allow more transparent benchmarking and reduce the sense that decisions are arbitrary.At the same time, we should be more willing to question the assumptions that underpin the system. The ‘public service discount' has become a default but it is out of kilter with the modern office of councillor and is arguably no longer appropriate.Public perceptions of councillor pay are sensitive, particularly in a context of financial pressure on local authorities. But avoiding the question carries its own risks. If the gap between expectations and reward continues to widen, the system will struggle to attract a wider group of councillors as well as to align our local democratic institutions with the requirements of modern public life.Jason Lowther is director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) at the University of Birmingham (email j.lowther@bham.ac.uk)The full report is available here

Title

PAY

Rethinking councillor pay for stronger democracy

By Dr Jason Lowther | 07 July 2026

Popular articles by Dr Jason Lowther

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by Dr Jason Lowther