Should charities be paying Trustees?

The debate on whether trustees should be paid or not is relatively new. Unlike local government councillors and members of the Reserve Forces who once gave their time voluntarily but have been remunerated for many years, the role of trustee has been strictly voluntary.

Views have been expressed that by not paying trustees, we are effectively discriminating against young people, as they cannot afford to take on voluntary work that can demand a substantial time commitment. This, it is claimed, leads to an imbalance of age groups on Trustee Boards, which too frequently consist largely of the over 65s.

One argument – although by no means the only one – in favour of paying trustees is that it would increase diversity on Trustee Boards. However, the proponents of this view have yet to provide convincing evidence to support it.

By contrast, there is a view that allowing trustees to be paid would create the danger of a two-tier system, with large wealthy charities cherry-picking potential trustees with offers of remuneration, whilst small charities would be unable to pay trustees at all.

The concept of paying roles, which were formerly either unpaid or paid token amounts, is increasing. For example, Northamptonshire County Council paid elected members £1,400 per year in the mid-1990s. Allowing for inflation, the same role should carry a salary of £3,307 today (a 136% increase). In fact, 2026 figures show that elected members in North Northamptonshire Unitary Authority are paid £15,614 – with additional allowances for extra responsibilities – a figure which represents a 1,115% increase.

If we have reached a point where younger people no longer wish to be trustees, perhaps we should look more closely at how we can make the role more attractive to them, rather than thinking that we can resolve this particular problem simply by allocating more money to it?