Employers may eventually have to provide salary information much earlier in the recruitment process under proposals being considered by the Government.
The consultation proposes requiring employers to publish pay information in job advertisements or, where a role has not been advertised, provide it to the candidate in writing before an interview. It is also considering what that information should include, from a fixed salary or salary range to benefits, annual increases and other financial terms.
No new legal obligation has yet been introduced. However, employers should not view the proposals simply as a question of adding a salary figure to future job adverts.
Greater transparency may bring existing pay differences into view, prompting questions from employees about how salaries are set, why colleagues carrying out similar work receive different amounts and whether those differences can be objectively explained.
What is the Government proposing?
The Government’s consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination includes a proposal that all employers should disclose pay information at the point of recruitment.
Where a job advert is used, the information would need to appear in the advert. Where recruitment takes place without an advert, the candidate would need to receive the information in writing before attending an interview.
The Government is seeking views on whether employers should provide:
- a specific salary;
- a salary range;
- a benchmark or minimum rate;
- details of annual adjustments;
- information about collective bargaining arrangements; or
- other financial benefits and conditions.
The precise requirements will depend on the outcome of the consultation and any subsequent legislation. The Government has said it intends to avoid imposing unnecessary reporting burdens, but its stated direction is towards greater openness at the beginning of the hiring process.
Karen Cole, Partner and Head of Employment at RIAA Barker Gillette says:
“Although the proposals are still at consultation stage, they are a useful reminder that pay decisions should be capable of explanation. Employers may find that publishing a salary range leads to questions extending well beyond the vacancy itself. Existing employees will understandably want to know how the range was determined and where their own pay sits within it.”
Transparency may support recruitment
Providing salary information from the outset could improve the recruitment experience for both employers and candidates.
Candidates can decide whether a role meets their expectations before spending time preparing an application or attending several interviews. Employers may also avoid progressing applicants whose salary requirements are significantly above the available budget.
A clear salary range could attract a more relevant pool of candidates and reduce the risk of negotiations failing when an offer is made.
However, the range must provide useful information. An extremely wide band may do little to help applicants understand what the employer is prepared to pay. It may also create uncertainty about the experience or qualifications needed to reach the upper end.
An employer advertising a position at between £40,000 and £55,000 should be ready to explain what distinguishes a candidate appointed at £40,000 from one offered £55,000.
Without objective criteria, a salary range may simply move negotiation and inconsistency into a more visible setting.
What will existing employees think?
One of the most immediate risks is that an employee may see their employer advertising a comparable role at a higher salary.
They may reasonably ask why a new recruit is being offered more than someone already carrying out the same or similar work. Depending on the circumstances, this could lead to difficult conversations, a formal grievance or allegations of discrimination or unequal pay.
A pay difference is not automatically unlawful. Employers may have legitimate reasons for offering a higher salary, including:
- greater experience or specialist expertise;
- additional qualifications;
- increased responsibilities;
- regional differences;
- difficulties recruiting into a particular role; or
- significant changes in the external market.
The difficulty arises when the employer cannot identify a clear and credible reason or where similar decisions have been made inconsistently.
For example, allowing individual managers complete freedom to negotiate starting salaries may result in comparable candidates being paid differently without any documented justification.
Equally, an explanation that one candidate simply negotiated more firmly may be difficult to defend where it produces a substantial and continuing disparity between employees performing comparable work.
Pay transparency and equal pay
Equal pay law requires men and women to receive equal pay for equal work unless an employer can establish that a difference is caused by a genuine material factor that is unrelated to sex.
Equal work can include the same or broadly similar work, work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme, or work of equal value.
This is different from the gender pay gap. Gender pay gap figures compare median earnings across groups and do not, by themselves, demonstrate that individuals are receiving unequal pay for equal work.
However, the figures provide important context. Office for National Statistics data recorded a gender pay gap of 6.9% among full-time employees in April 2025. Among the highest-paid tenth of full-time employees, the gap was 15.2%.
Pay transparency will not automatically remove those differences. It may, though, make pay-setting practices easier to examine and increase pressure on employers to justify their decisions.
Salary bands need clear rules
A structured pay framework can help employers make more consistent decisions, but the framework must operate meaningfully in practice.
Employers should consider what determines an employee’s place within a salary band. Relevant factors might include:
- the complexity of the role;
- defined levels of experience;
- technical or professional qualifications;
- management responsibility;
- performance against measurable criteria; and
- particular skills that are genuinely needed by the business.
These factors should be relevant to the position and applied consistently to different candidates.
Vague concepts such as “leadership potential”, “cultural fit” or the perceived quality of a candidate’s previous employer may leave too much room for subjective judgement and unconscious bias.
Government-commissioned research published alongside the consultation suggests that including salary ranges in job adverts could reduce disparities caused by negotiation and contribute to fairer starting salaries. It also identifies clearer information about pay scales and progression criteria as an important part of tackling structural bias.
Should employers ask about previous salary?
Employers are not currently subject to a general ban on asking candidates about their previous earnings.
Even so, businesses should consider whether salary history is genuinely relevant to the value of the new role.
Using a candidate’s previous salary as the starting point for negotiations can preserve historic inequalities. Someone who was underpaid in an earlier position may continue to be underpaid if each new employer simply offers a percentage increase on their last salary.
Past earnings may also bear little relationship to the responsibilities, market value or demands of the vacancy being filled.
A safer and more consistent approach is to value the role first and then decide where the candidate should sit within the available range by reference to their relevant skills, experience and responsibilities.
The wider Government review is considering salary history questions alongside other pay transparency measures, although it remains unclear whether restrictions will form part of any final reforms.
Pay differences can affect trust and retention
The legal position is only part of the issue.
An employee who discovers that a new colleague is being recruited on a higher salary may feel overlooked or undervalued even where there is a legitimate explanation. If the employer responds poorly or provides inconsistent reasons, the issue may affect morale, trust and retention.
Managers may need to answer more detailed questions about:
- how salary bands have been created;
- what employees must demonstrate to progress;
- when salaries are reviewed;
- how market adjustments are handled; and
- why exceptions have been made.
“It is important that managers do not provide different explanations for the same pay decision,” added Karen.
“If one employee is told that salary is based on experience while another is told it is determined by market conditions or negotiation, confidence in the process can quickly be lost. Clear criteria and careful records will help employers respond consistently.”
The risks are wider than gender
Although equal pay law has traditionally focused on differences between men and women performing equal work, recruitment and salary decisions may also create wider discrimination risks.
A provision, criterion or practice that places people sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage may amount to indirect discrimination unless the employer can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
This could arise where apparently neutral pay criteria disadvantage disabled candidates, people from particular ethnic backgrounds, older or younger applicants, or another protected group.
The Government’s consultation forms part of a broader examination of the equal pay framework, including protections affecting disabled people and ethnic minority workers. Employers should therefore assess pay practices across their workforce rather than treating transparency solely as a gender issue.
What should employers do now?
There is no immediate requirement for every employer to publish salaries in job adverts. The proposals remain under consultation, and the detail may change.
Nevertheless, employers can use this period to examine whether their current arrangements would withstand greater scrutiny.
Useful steps may include:
- reviewing existing salary bands and job descriptions;
- checking whether comparable roles are being paid consistently;
- recording the objective reasons for differences in starting salary;
- limiting unsupported managerial discretion;
- reviewing whether salary history questions are necessary;
- establishing clear criteria for progression through pay bands; and
- preparing managers to answer employee questions about pay decisions.
Employers should also consider how a newly advertised salary might compare with the pay of existing employees before the advert is published.
Preparing for a more open approach to pay
Salary transparency may help employers attract candidates, make recruitment more efficient and demonstrate a commitment to fair treatment.
It may equally expose pay structures that have developed without a consistent framework, particularly where starting salaries have depended heavily on negotiation or individual managerial discretion.
The wider question is therefore not simply whether a salary will need to appear in a job advert. Employers may increasingly be expected to explain how pay has been calculated, why differences exist and what employees must do to progress.
RIAA Barker Gillette’s Employment team can advise employers on recruitment processes, equal pay, discrimination, salary structures and workplace grievances. We can also help businesses review their current arrangements and prepare for any changes arising from the Government’s consultation.
About the author
Karen Cole is a Partner and Head of the Employment team at RIAA Barker Gillette. She has a range of expertise based on her employment law, dispute resolution and litigation background. Karen provides employment law advice to businesses and individuals, whether contentious or not. She is a member of the Employment Lawyers Association and the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers.