The Cost of Commissioner Intervention in Local Authorities: Who Pays, Is It Worth It, and Is It Effective?

Commissioner intervention in local authorities is one of the most serious actions the UK Government can take when a council is deemed to have failed in its duties whether due to financial mismanagement, governance breakdown, or safeguarding concerns. While such interventions are intended to restore stability and public trust, they come at a significant cost both financially and democratically. This article explores the true price of commissioner intervention: who pays for it, whether the cost is justifiable, and whether it is the most effective method of supporting struggling councils. With local government finances under unprecedented strain, it is vital to scrutinise whether this approach delivers value for money and long-term improvement.

Financial Cost of Intervention

Commissioner intervention is undeniably expensive. According to The MJ, ten local authorities have collectively spent £9.5 million on government interventions over the past four years. These costs encompass not only commissioner fees but also the expenses of envoys, assurance panels, and associated support structures. Commissioner fees are set by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and are standardised as follows:

• Lead Commissioner: £1,200 per day

• Other Commissioners: £1,100 per day

These rates do not include additional costs such as travel, accommodation, and subsistence, which are also charged back to the council.

For example:

• Birmingham City Council, currently under intervention due to financial collapse, has reported monthly commissioner costs ranging from £6,000 to over £21,000 per individual. These figures include hotel stays, travel, and meals, often incurred over multiple days each month.

• Woking Borough Council, facing a £1.2 billion debt crisis, has paid £21,282.50 in a single month for one commissioner, with similar costs expected to recur monthly.

Copyright: Edward Shaw

These figures raise serious questions about affordability and sustainability. Councils already in financial distress are expected to absorb these costs, which can quickly escalate into hundreds of thousands of pounds annually. In some cases, the cost of intervention rivals the budget cuts that triggered the crisis in the first place.

Moreover, these costs are not capped or means-tested. There is no sliding scale based on the size or financial capacity of the authority. This means smaller councils with limited reserves may be disproportionately affected, potentially worsening their financial position. The lack of transparency around total intervention costs also complicates public accountability. While some councils publish monthly breakdowns, others do not, making it difficult for residents and elected members to assess whether the intervention is delivering value for money.

Source: Google

Is the Cost Justifiable?

The justification for commissioner intervention ultimately hinges on whether it delivers meaningful, measurable improvement in governance, financial management, and service delivery. In some cases, such as Rotherham and Tower Hamlets, commissioners have been credited with stabilising councils following serious failings.

• In Rotherham, intervention followed revelations of widespread child sexual exploitation. Commissioners were appointed in 2015 and remained until 2019. A House of Commons report concluded that the intervention was “justified, proportionate and effective”, noting significant improvements in safeguarding, governance, and public trust.

• 
  

• In Tower Hamlets, commissioners were first appointed in 2014 due to concerns over governance and misuse of public funds. A second intervention began in 2025 due to a “toxic political culture” and poor leadership. Ministerial envoys have been tasked with restoring transparency and accountability, with a £6 million improvement budget allocated by the council itself.

Despite these examples, critics argue that the value for money of commissioner intervention remains unclear.

Key Concerns

• Lack of Robust Metrics: There is no standardised framework for evaluating the long-term impact of commissioner-led interventions. While councils may show short-term compliance with improvement plans, it is harder to assess whether cultural and systemic change has truly taken root. The National Audit Office has previously criticised central government for relying on limited performance data that fails to capture governance and organisational culture.

• Undermining Local Democracy: Commissioners are unelected officials with significant powers, including the ability to override decisions made by elected members. This can erode local accountability and public trust. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) has warned that interventions may disempower councillors and create dependency, especially if there is no clear exit strategy.

• Opportunity Cost: The financial burden of intervention often exceeding £500,000 annually per council raises questions about whether these funds could be better spent on preventative support, such as peer reviews, leadership development, or sector-led improvement programmes.

Sector Perspectives

Commissioner Gavin Jones, speaking to The MJ, defended the model, arguing that commissioners bring “clarity, pace, and grip” to failing councils. However, he acknowledged that the sector must do more to demonstrate return on investment and share learning from interventions.

The Local Government Association (LGA) and CfGS continue to advocate for early support and peer-led improvement as more sustainable alternatives. These models retain local control and are often more cost-effective, though they require councils to be proactive and transparent about their challenges.

Effectiveness of Commissioner Intervention

The effectiveness of commissioner intervention in local authorities is a subject of ongoing debate. While commissioners are often appointed to stabilise councils in crisis, the outcomes vary significantly depending on the context, the scope of powers granted, and the quality of local leadership.

Positive Impacts

Commissioners frequently bring expertise, stability, and external challenge to councils facing serious governance or financial failings. Their presence can:

• Accelerate the implementation of improvement plans

• Restore basic governance functions

• Rebuild trust with residents and stakeholders

• Support the recruitment of permanent senior leadership teams

For example, in Rotherham, commissioners were credited with restoring public confidence and improving safeguarding following the child sexual exploitation scandal. In Tower Hamlets, commissioners helped address governance failures and financial mismanagement, leading to a return of functions to elected members.

In Birmingham, commissioners have overseen the appointment of a new Managing Director, Section 151 Officer, and other key roles, and supported progress on equal pay reform and Oracle system reimplementation.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite these successes, commissioner interventions are not universally effective. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) notes that while commissioners can reset failing councils, they may also:

• Create dependency on external oversight

• Disempower elected members, especially if the intervention lacks a clear exit strategy

• Fail to embed cultural change, focusing instead on compliance and technical fixes

Critics argue that some interventions are:

• Slow to deliver results, with improvement plans taking years to implement

• Disconnected from local context, especially when commissioners lack deep understanding of the community

• Costly, with little evidence of long-term return on investment

A 2023 CfGS roundtable found that governance professionals in councils under intervention often felt excluded from decision-making, and that interventions sometimes undermined local scrutiny and democratic accountability.

Lack of Standardised Evaluation

There is no consistent framework for evaluating the success of commissioner interventions. While councils may report progress against improvement plans, there is limited data on:

• Long-term financial resilience

• Cultural transformation

• Resident satisfaction

• Democratic renewal

The National Audit Office has previously criticised central government for relying on narrow performance metrics that fail to capture the full picture of organisational health.

Alternatives to Commissioner Intervention

As the cost and democratic implications of commissioner intervention come under increasing scrutiny, there is growing support across the sector for more collaborative, preventative approaches to council improvement. These alternatives led by the sector itself are designed to identify risk early, support councils to self-correct, and retain local democratic control.

Sector-Led Improvement and Peer Review

The Local Government Association (LGA) has long championed sector-led improvement as a more sustainable and empowering model. This approach is built on three core principles:

• Councils are responsible for their own performance

• Local accountability drives improvement

• Councils have a collective responsibility for the sector’s success

The LGA’s Corporate Peer Challenge programme is offered to every council at least once every five years, fully subsidised. Specialist peer reviews covering finance, governance, and service delivery are also available. These reviews are conducted by experienced councillors and officers from other authorities, supported by LGA regional teams.

In 2024/25, 71 councils underwent a peer challenge, representing nearly 37% of the sector. Common recommendations included:

• Strengthening political and managerial leadership

• Improving governance and scrutiny arrangements

• Enhancing organisational culture and staff engagement

• Addressing capacity gaps and reliance on agency staff

Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) Perspective

CfGS supports sector-led models that prioritise early engagement, transparent governance, and local ownership of improvement plans. Their research highlights that commissioner interventions, while sometimes necessary, can:

• Disempower elected members

• Undermine scrutiny

• Create dependency if not time-limited

CfGS advocates for councils to invest in internal assurance frameworks, risk management, and scrutiny development to avoid escalation to statutory intervention.

Cost Comparison and Value

While commissioner interventions can cost councils £500,000 or more annually, peer reviews are subsidised or low-cost, and often deliver more tailored, context-sensitive support. The LGA’s improvement and assurance framework aims to reduce the risk and cost of failure by embedding good governance and performance monitoring across the sector.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite their benefits, sector-led models are voluntary, and uptake is uneven. Some councils particularly those with entrenched leadership issues may resist external challenge until failure becomes unavoidable. There are also concerns about whether peer reviewers are sufficiently independent and whether the sector has enough capacity to support widespread improvement.

Nonetheless, many in the sector view peer-led support as a more democratic, cost-effective, and empowering alternative to commissioner-led intervention especially when deployed early and supported by robust internal governance.

Conclusion

Commissioner intervention remains one of the most high-profile and costly tools available to central government when local authorities fail. While it can deliver stability and restore governance in extreme cases, the financial burden often exceeding half a million pounds annually per council raises serious questions about value for money, especially when the cost is borne by the very councils in crisis. Evidence of long-term effectiveness is mixed. Commissioners can bring clarity and grip, but they may also disempower elected members and fail to embed lasting cultural change. The absence of robust metrics and transparent evaluation frameworks makes it difficult to assess whether interventions truly deliver sustainable improvement.

As the sector grapples with financial pressures and rising demand, there is a clear need to explore alternatives. Sector-led support, peer review models, and early risk identification offer more democratic, cost-effective, and context-sensitive approaches. These models empower councils to take ownership of their improvement journey, retain local accountability, and avoid the reputational and financial damage of statutory intervention. For officers and members, the message is clear: prevention is better than cure. Investing in strong governance, open scrutiny, and collaborative learning may not only save money it may preserve the integrity of local democracy itself.