The Remuneration of

Councillors in London
2014
Report of the Independent Panel
Introduction
The Local Authorities (Members Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) authorise the establish-
ment by the Association of London Government (now London Councils) of an independent remuneration panel to make
recommendations in respect of the members allowances payable by London boroughs. Such a panel (the Panel) was
established and reported in 2001, 2003, 2006 and 2010. It has been re-constituted and now comprises Sir Rodney
Brooke CBE DL (Chair), Steve Bundred and Anne Watts CBE.
The Regulations require a review of the scheme every four years as a minimum. The current Panel has therefore complet-
ed a review of remuneration for councillors in London. We present our findings and recommendations in this report.
As a preparation for our work, we invited all London boroughs to give their views on the operation of the existing scheme.
We also invited comments from the Leaders Committee of London Councils. We are grateful for the feedback, which confirms
that the existing London scheme of members allowances is still fit for purpose. We make recommendations accordingly.
The role of elected members
In our previous reports we reflected on the importance of the role of elected members. We repeat at Appendix B the
job profile for councillors which we included in our 2010 report. In that report, we quoted the Government-appointed
Councillors Commission. The Commission took the view (which we continue to share) that: Allowances should be set
at a level that enables people to undertake the role of councillor while not acting as an incentive to do so. Allowances
are not shown by polls to be something which influences councillors to take on the role, though they are instrumental
in making it possible for some people to do so. If it is important that there are no financial incentives to being a councillor,
it is equally important that there should not be a financial disincentive.
It is clearly desirable that service as a councillor is not confined to those with independent means. We do not repeat the
arguments for appropriate remuneration for councillors which we have set out in our previous reports. We believe them
to be self-evident. But we do repeat our belief in the importance of local democracy and the role of councillors within
it. Each London Borough is responsible for services crucial to its residents. Each is responsible for a revenue budget of
between 1.3bn and 3.3bn.
The responsibilities placed on local authorities continue to increase. The Localism Act 2011 devolved services to the
boroughs, though, it was complained, without the resources to discharge them. From April 2013 London boroughs
assumed the major new responsibility for health and wellbeing. Financial austerity brings substantial and further
challenges to councillors: local authorities are required to make substantial cuts in their spending. Changes to the welfare
system (particularly acute in London) give residual discretionary powers to local authorities. Councillors are faced with
unenviable choices. Demand for local authority services continues to grow. In particular, there is exponential growth in the
number of old people and a corresponding increase in demand for social care. The strain on and competition for resources
increase the demands made on elected members.
Pensions
In the Panels first report we recommended that councillors should be eligible for pensions. Councillors are often re-
tired and currently have an average age of 60. It is increasingly desirable to attract a younger cohort of people to serve
on councils. Access to a pension scheme is one way of achieving this. Councillors especially those with lead responsibilities
must surrender earning potential elsewhere, earning potential which would normally be pensionable. It seems per-
fectly reasonable that allowances attracted by service as a councillor should be pensionable.
The Government agreed with this view and the Regulations introduced the potential for councillors allowances to be
pensionable upon the recommendation of the relevant Independent Panel. Accordingly the Panel recommended that
all London borough councillors under the age of 75 be eligible to join the local government pension scheme. Twenty
two of the 32 London boroughs have accepted that recommendation.
In March 2014 the Government laid before Parliament Regulations which would end the right of councillors to enter the
local government pension scheme. These Regulations would extend not only to councillors but also to elected mayors
(including the Mayor of London) and members of the Greater London Assembly, though Police and Crime Commissioners
would retain their right of access to the pension scheme.
Councillor Sir Merrick Cockell, Chairman of the Local Government Association and Chair of London Councils from 2006
until 2010, responded: The governments decision isnt about saving money, it is fundamentally about undermining
the role of a councillor and undermining the role of local democracy. He added: Fair remuneration is important so that
people from all walks of life can afford to stand for office. Otherwise we risk local government becoming the exclusive
preserve of a privileged few who have the luxury of time and money to spare. His remarks were endorsed by Cllr Gary
Porter, Leader of the Local Government Associations Conservative Group, who pointed out that councillors are spend-
ing more time supporting their constituents and working with external organisations such as GPs, schools, police,
local businesses and voluntary organisations. Secondly, recruitment and retention is becoming increasingly difficult
the commitment involved can be a deterrent when set against a possible loss of earnings and a potentially negative
effect on their careers.
We believe that access to a pension scheme can be an important factor in making service as a councillor financially pos-
sible for a wider range of people. It is particularly important for those who, like elected mayors, leaders and portfolio
holders, give most or all of their time to service in local government and lose the opportunity to contribute to a pension
scheme elsewhere. We would very much like the Government to reconsider this decision.
The current financial and political climate
Our 2010 report made no recommendations for increasing the levels of members allowances other than continuing
provision for annual adjustments in accordance with the annual local government pay settlement. As the Govern-
ment-appointed Councillors Commission pointed out in their 2007 report, the recommendations of the London Panel
had led to substantial convergence of members allowances across London. Indeed, the Councillors Commission rec-
ommended a similar system for the country as a whole. Following our recommendations, there is now considerable
congruity in the basic allowance made by London boroughs. However, most London boroughs have not adopted our
recommendations in their entirety.
Our recommended allowances are tied to the annual local government pay settlement. Because of the current financial
climate, the local government pay settlement has been frozen in three of the last four years. In 2013/14 there was a
1% pay award. Acutely sensitive to the current financial austerity, only two boroughs increased members allowances
by that percentage. Indeed nine boroughs have reduced members allowances since the date of our last report.
We are acutely aware that now is not the time to increase allowances made to councillors, though we continue to
recommend that members allowances be pegged to the annual local government pay settlement. Such pegging will
ensure that councillors can receive annual increases which are in line with those received by staff. We fully accept that,
in the current financial climate, it would be entirely inappropriate to increase members allowances (beyond the annual
updating). Nevertheless we hope that in the longer term the financial situation will permit further convergence of
members allowances around our recommendations. We continue to believe that the scheme we propose is sufficiently
flexible to accommodate the different political management arrangements of different London boroughs. Our view is
confirmed by the general response from the London boroughs.
Consultation with the boroughs
Level of allowances
In our consultation with the London boroughs we asked a number of questions. We enquired whether it was believed that
the salary of an MP remains a sound comparator to fix the remuneration of a borough leader. [Our recommendations for
other special responsibility allowances are related to that recommended for Leaders.] Members of Parliament currently
receive a salary of 66,396, now rather more than our updated recommendation for the allowance for Leaders.
Though there was dissent from one Borough, another asserted that the Leaders allowance should reflect the total
remuneration package paid to Members of Parliament. A different borough pointed out that whereas a Member of
Parliament represented an electorate of 70,000 people, a leader was responsible for the delivery of a wide range of
services to a population of 300,000 an electorate of 220,000 across an area three times as large as a parliamentary
constituency. Indeed, it is arguable that the responsibilities of some cabinet portfolio holders are greater than the lo-
cal responsibilities of an MP but on balance the salary of an MP is about as sound a comparator as is likely to be found.
In considering the responses, we also took into account the remuneration payable to chairs and members of other
public bodies. We continue to believe that the allowances we have recommended are suitable. In particular, we think it
appropriate that Leaders should receive an allowance approximating to the salary of a Member of Parliament.
External paid appointments
There has been some controversy over councillors accepting paid appointments in other public bodies, given their cu-
mulative remuneration. We asked the boroughs whether allowances should be adjusted to take into account external
payments from other public bodies. One authority thought it reasonable to consider the balance of benefit to the local
area before determining whether home remuneration should be reduced accordingly. Other boroughs disagreed.
We believe that if members take on extra work and responsibilities through undertaking external appointments, then
they should be entitled to retain the remuneration attracted by those responsibilities. Of course the borough might
reflect on the extent to which the external duties are compatible with the time required to discharge duties within the
borough and adjust responsibilities accordingly.
Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board
These new bodies govern commissioning decisions across health, public health and social care. They must develop
with commissioning groups a shared understanding of the health and wellbeing needs of the community. They must
undertake a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and develop a joint strategy for how these needs can be best addressed.
This will include recommendations for joint commissioning and integrating services across health and social care. The
Boards must drive local commissioning of health care, social care and public health and create a more effective and
responsive local health and care system. They must also address other services that impact on health and wellbeing
such as housing and education.
It was recommended to us that the Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board should receive a special responsibility
allowance in Band Three, that designed for Cabinet members. We entirely agree: this is a statutory post conferring per-
sonal statutory responsibility. The role is of major importance to local government and should be remunerated accord-
ingly where they are councillors. In practice we imagine that Chairs of Health and Wellbeing Boards will be members of
the Cabinet and have been remunerated within Band Three since their creation.
Lead Member for Childrens and Adult Services
It was suggested to us that the Lead Member for Childrens Services should receive a special responsibility allowance
higher than other Cabinet Members: The enhanced duty of safeguarding for the role of lead member for Childrens
Services and the time required to fulfil it makes the post a special case for an enhanced banding between the current
bands three and four.

We well understand the heavy responsibility on the lead member for Childrens services and the consequences of any
failure in the system. We are entirely sympathetic to the view that the responsibility might warrant a higher special
responsibility allowance than other Cabinet members. In our 2010 report we specifically contemplated the different
weight of responsibilities of different portfolios and suggested that they might justify different allowances. Our rec-
ommended Band Three for Cabinet Members has a range of over 6,000 and we believe that this is sufficient to enable
boroughs to differentiate between the different weights of portfolios should they so decide.
It has also been suggested to us that the lead member responsible for adult safeguarding has a degree of responsibility
equal to that of the lead member for childrens services. We are not convinced of the comparison.
Given the different allocation of responsibilities in different boroughs, we do not make specific recommendations on
differentiating special responsibility allowances for Cabinet members within Band Three.
Dependants Carers Allowance
The Regulations authorise the payment to councillors of an allowance (the Dependants Carers Allowance) in respect
of the expenses of arranging for the care of children or dependants when the councillor attends meetings or is engaged
in other official duties. We received representations that the Allowance should be not less than the living wage.
We strongly believe that the boroughs should make a dependants carers allowance available to their members. Ac-
cess to a dependants carers allowances can make it possible for a wider range of people to serve on their councils.
Specifically by payment of dependants carers allowance, boroughs can attract some who would not normally expect
to become councillors. 26 of the 32 boroughs provide in their allowances scheme for payment of dependants carers
allowances. In those boroughs which do make a payment, allowances vary from 5.27 to 9.26 per hour (in one case
15 per hour for specialised care).
We recognise the need for payments to pay regard to local circumstances and the nature of specialist care. We believe
that ordinary care should be remunerated at not less than the London living wage of 8.60 per hour; and (on presenta-
tion of proof of expense) payment should be made at a higher rate when specialist nursing skills are required.
Sickness, maternity and paternity leave
This issue has again been raised with us. We adhere to our recommendations in the 2006 report, repeated in 2010,
namely that councils should make arrangements in their members allowances schemes to allow the continuance of
special responsibility allowances in the case of sickness, maternity and paternity leave in the same terms that the
councils employees enjoy such benefits (that is to say, they follow the same policies).
Members of social care and health scrutiny panels and corporate parenting panel
One borough suggested that service on the Social Care and Health Scrutiny Panels and the Corporate Parenting Panel
should be placed within Band One because of the risk profile of those roles.
We continue to recommend that the responsibility allowance payable under Band One should include membership of
committees, sub-committees and adoption panels where membership requires attendance with exceptional frequency
or for exceptionally long periods. If a Council believes that such memberships are substantially more onerous than
service on other committees, then we agree that they would be appropriately remunerated on Band One.
Travel and subsistence allowances
We have been asked to give advice on travel and subsistence allowances. We continue to believe that the Basic Allow-
ance should cover all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by councillors, including intra-borough travel costs
and expenses, though councils may consider that there are circumstances where it may be appropriate for a scheme
to provide payment for the cost of transport, e.g. journeys home after late meetings, and for people with disabilities.
We also continue to believe that, where travel and subsistence allowances are payable, they should be in accordance
with the current scheme for travel and subsistence applicable to the Boroughs staff; and that travel allowances should
extend to travel by bicycle.
Update for inflation
We continue to recommend that the allowances we recommend should be updated annually in accordance with the
headline figure in the annual local government pay settlement.
Sir Rodney Brooke CBE DL Steve Bundred Anne Watts CBE
London
1 June 2014
Appendix A
Basic allowance 10,703
Special responsibilities beyond the basic allowance
The case for special allowances
The reasons for payment of additional special responsibility allowances should be clearly set out in local allowances
schemes. Special allowances should come into play only in positions where there are significant differences in the time
requirements and levels of responsibility from those generally expected of a councillor.
Calculation of special allowances
The proposed amounts for each band are a percentage of the figure suggested for a council leader depending upon
levels of responsibility of the roles undertaken and are explained below. We believe that the SRA, which the previous
panel recommended for the leader of a London council (updated), continues to be appropriate.
Categories of special allowances
The regulations specify the following categories of responsibility for which special responsibility allowances may be paid:
Members of the executive where the authority is operating executive arrangements
Acting as leader or deputy leader of a political group within the authority
Presiding at meetings of a committee or sub-committee of the authority, or a joint committee of the authority and
one or more other authorities, or a sub-committee of such a joint committee
Representing the authority at meetings of, or arranged by, any other body
Membership of a committee or sub-committee of the authority which meets with exceptional frequency or for ex-
ceptionally long periods
Acting as spokesperson of a political group on a committee or sub-committee of the authority
Membership of an adoption panel
Membership of a licensing or regulatory committee
Such other activities in relation to the discharge of the authoritys functions as require of the member an amount
of time and effort equal to or greater than would be required of him by any one of the activities mentioned above,
whether or not that activity is specified in the scheme.
Local discretion
It is for the councils locally to decide how to allocate their councillors between the different bands, having regard
to our recommendations and how to set the specific remuneration within the band. They must have regard to our
recommendations. We believe these should have the merits of being easy to apply, easy to adapt, easy to explain and
understand, and easy to administer.
BAND ONE
The posts we envisage falling within band one include:
Vice chair of a service, regulatory or scrutiny committee
Chair of sub-committee
Leader of second or smaller opposition group
Service spokesperson for first opposition group
Group secretary (or equivalent) of majority group
First opposition group whip (in respect of council business)
Vice chair of council business
Chairs, vice chairs, area committees and forums or community leaders
Cabinet assistant
Leadership of a strategic major topic
Acting as a member of a committee or sub-committee which meets with exceptional
frequency or for exceptionally long periods
Acting as a member of an adoption panel where membership requires attendance with
exceptional frequency or for exceptionally long periods
Leadership of a specific major project.
Remuneration
We propose that band one special responsibility allowances should be on a sliding scale of between 20 30 per cent of
the remuneration package for a council leader.
This would be made up as follows:
Basic allowance: 10,703
Band one allowance: 2,392 to 8,941
Total: 13,095 to 19,644
BAND TWO
The types of office we contemplate being within band two are:
Lead member in scrutiny arrangements, such as chair of a scrutiny panel
Representative on key outside body
Chair of major regulatory committee e.g. planning
Chair of council business (civic mayor)
Leader of principal opposition group
Majority party chief whip (in respect of council business).
Remuneration
We propose that band two allowances should be on a sliding scare between 40 60 per cent, pro rata of the remuner-
ation package for a council leader.
This is made up as follows:
Basic allowance 10,703
Band two allowances: 15,486 to 28,581
Total: 26,189 to 39,284
BAND THREE
We see this band as appropriate to the following posts:
Cabinet member
Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board
Chair of the main overview or scrutiny committee
Deputy leader of the council
Remuneration:
We propose that band three allowances should be between 70 80 per cent pro rata of the
remuneration package for a council leader.
This is made up as follows:
Basic allowance: 10,703
Band three allowance: 35,128 to 41,675
Total: 45,831 to 52,378
BAND FOUR
Leader of cabinet, including a strong leader.
This is a full-time job, involving a high level of responsibility and now includes the exercise of executive responsibil-
ities. It is right that it should be remunerated on a basis which compares with similar positions in the public sector,
while still retaining a reflection of the voluntary character of public service.
Remuneration:
We propose that the remuneration package for a council leader under band four of our scheme should be 64,824.
This is made up as follows:
Basic allowance: 10,703
Band four allowance: 54,769
Total: 65,472
BAND FIVE
Directly elected mayor
A directly elected mayor is a full-time job with a high level of responsibility and exercises executive responsibilities over
a fixed electoral cycle. It is right that it should be remunerated on a basis which compares with similar positions in the
public sector, while still retaining a reflection of the voluntary character of public service. However we believe this post
remains different to that of the strong leader with cabinet model. The directly elected mayor is directly elected by the
electorate as a whole. The strong leader holds office at the p0leasure of the council and can be removed by the council.
We believe that the distinction is paramount and this should be reflected in the salary level.
Remuneration:
We propose that a band five directly elected mayor should receive a remuneration package of 25 per cent higher than
that recommended for a council leader and that it should be a salary set at 81,839.
Appendix B
On behalf of the community a job profile for councillors
Purposes:
1. To participate constructively in the good governance of the area.
2. To contribute actively to the formation and scrutiny of the authoritys policies, budget, strategies and service delivery.
3. To represent effectively the interests of the ward for which the councillor was elected, and deal with constituents
enquiries and representations.
4. To champion the causes which best relate to the interests and sustainability of the community and campaign for the
improvement of the quality of life of the community in terms of equity, economy and environment.
5. To represent the council on an outside body, such as a charitable trust or neighbourhood association.
Key Tasks:
1. To fulfil the statutory and local determined requirements of an elected member of a local authority and the author-
ity itself, including compliance with all relevant codes of conduct, and participation in those decisions and activities
reserved to the full council (forexample, setting budgets, overall priorities, strategy).
2. To participate effectively as a member of any committee or panel to which the councillor is appointed, including
related responsibilities for the services falling within the committees (or panels) terms of reference, human resource
issues, staff appointments, fees and charges, and liaison with other public bodies to promote better understanding
and partnership working.
3. To participate in the activities of an outside body to which the councillor is appointed, providing two-way commu-
nication between the organisations. Also, for the same purpose, to develop and maintain a working knowledge of the
authoritys policies and practices in relation to that body and of the communitys needs and aspirations in respect of
that bodys role and functions.
4. To participate in the scrutiny or performance review of the services of the authority, including where the authority
so decides, the scrutiny of policies and budget, and their effectiveness in achieving the strategic objectives of the
authority.
5. To participate, as appointed, in the area and in service-based consultative processes with the community and with
other organisations. 6. To represent the authority to the community, and the community to the authority, through the
various forums available.
7. To develop and maintain a working knowledge of the authoritys services, management arrangements, powers/du-
ties, and constraints, and to develop good working relationships with relevant officers of the authority.
8. To develop and maintain a working knowledge of the organisations, services, activities and other factors which im-
pact upon the communitys well-being and identity.
9. To contribute constructively to open government and democratic renewal through active encouragement of the
community to participate generally in the government of the area.
10. To participate in the activities of any political group of which the councillor is a member.
11. To undertake necessary training and development programmes as agreed by the authority.
12. To be accountable for his/her actions and to report regularly on them in accessible and transparent ways.
Appendix C
The independent panel members
Sir Rodney Brooke has a long career in local government, including as chief executive of West Yorkshire County Council,
Westminster City Council and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He was knighted in 2007 for his contribution
to public service and is currently chairman of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Steve Bundred was chairman of Monitor, chief executive of the Audit Commission and chief executive of the London
Borough of Camden.
Anne Watts CBE has an extensive career in equality and diversity that spans the private, voluntary and public sectors
with organisations including the Open University, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and Business in the
Community. She chaired the NHS Appointments Commission.
P
Published: June 2014