Employers could soon be required to share salary information with candidates at the very start of the recruitment process. The Government is consulting on the change now, and the implications reach well beyond the wording of a job advert.
The Government is consulting on proposals that would require employers to publish pay information in job adverts, or to provide it to candidates in writing before an interview where no advert has been issued. The consultation asks whether employers should disclose a specific salary, a salary range or another benchmark, and whether information about benefits and other pay conditions should be included alongside it.
Many jobseekers are likely to welcome the proposals, but salary transparency is not simply a recruitment issue. Publishing salary ranges could draw attention to existing pay disparities, inconsistent decision making and differences in employment law terms that employers may be asked to explain.
No changes have yet been confirmed, and the detail will depend on the outcome of the consultation, which closes on 27 October 2026. Even so, the proposals are a useful prompt for employers to think about what greater pay transparency would mean for their business.
Salary Transparency in Job Adverts Is Declining
The consultation arrives at a time when fewer employers appear to be disclosing salaries voluntarily.
Adzuna reported that only 41.57% of UK job adverts included salary information in June 2026, meaning almost six in ten advertised vacancies gave candidates no indication of the pay on offer. Adzuna described this as the weakest sustained level of salary transparency it had recorded in more than a decade.
Candidates can consequently invest significant time preparing applications and attending interviews, only to discover that the available salary does not meet their expectations.
Providing pay information at the beginning of the process helps candidates make informed decisions. It can also reduce the time employers spend progressing applicants who were never likely to accept an eventual offer.
Publishing Salaries Could Improve Candidate Attraction
Salary transparency may offer commercial benefits to employers as well as candidates. Analysis published by Reed found that job adverts displaying a salary received 60% more applications than adverts that omitted the information. The figure is based on Reed’s own platform data and cannot guarantee the same result for every employer, but it suggests candidates are far more likely to engage with a role when they understand the potential reward.
A clearly defined salary range can also produce a more focused pool of applicants. Candidates whose expectations fall outside the budget can make that assessment before applying, reducing the risk of negotiations breaking down at the very end of the recruitment process.
Employers should nevertheless avoid publishing ranges so broad that they provide little meaningful information. A band of £35,000 to £60,000 may generate interest, but candidates and existing employees will reasonably expect an explanation of what justifies an appointment towards the upper end.
Could an Advertised Salary Expose an Equal Pay Problem?
The more significant issue may arise when existing employees see a vacancy advertised at a higher salary than they currently receive.
An employee carrying out the same or broadly comparable work may ask why a recruit is being offered more. That question could lead to an informal complaint, a formal grievance or, in some circumstances, an equal pay or discrimination claim.
Equal pay law generally requires men and women to receive equal pay for equal work, unless the employer can establish that the difference is explained by a genuine material factor unrelated to sex. Equal work can include like work, work rated as equivalent or work of equal value.
The gender pay gap is a different measure from unlawful unequal pay. It compares average earnings across groups and does not establish that men and women are being paid differently for performing equal work. The distinction matters, but gender pay gap data still provides useful context for the Government’s focus on pay setting practices.
The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that the gender pay gap among full-time employees was 6.9% in April 2025. The gap was wider among higher earners, reaching 15.2% among full-time employees in the highest paid tenth of the workforce.
Greater transparency will not automatically remove these disparities. It may, however, make differences more visible and invite greater scrutiny of how salaries have been determined.
When Can Differences in Salary Be Justified?
A difference between an advertised salary and the pay of an existing employee is not necessarily unlawful. Employers may sometimes be able to justify a higher salary because of:
- Additional experience or specialist qualifications
- Greater responsibility attached to the role
- Regional factors and local market conditions
- A genuine shortage of suitable candidates
- Market pressure to pay more than the business has historically offered to secure expertise
The legal and employee relations risks are far more likely to arise where there is no clear explanation for the difference.
A general explanation that the new employee simply negotiated more effectively may be difficult to defend before an employment tribunal if it has created a significant disparity between people performing comparable work. Employers may need to demonstrate which objective factors influenced the decision and how those factors were applied.
The same concern arises where different managers have been allowed to set starting salaries without an agreed framework. A series of individually negotiated decisions can create inconsistencies that only become apparent once salaries are disclosed more widely.
Salary Ranges Need Meaningful Criteria
Introducing salary bands will have limited value unless employers can explain how individuals are placed within them.
An employer advertising a role at £40,000 to £50,000, for example, may need to explain the experience, qualifications or responsibilities required to receive £50,000 rather than £40,000.
Without meaningful criteria, managers may continue to make subjective decisions that produce inconsistent outcomes. Candidates who negotiate confidently may receive more than candidates with comparable or stronger experience, while assumptions about an applicant’s previous earnings or personal circumstances could influence the offer.
Government commissioned research accompanying the consultation suggests that mandatory salary ranges may help reduce negotiation-based disparities and support more equitable starting salaries.
How far employers will need to formalise their salary criteria will become clearer once the Government has considered the consultation responses and confirmed whether it intends to proceed.
Should Employers Ask Candidates About Their Salary History?
There is currently no general prohibition on asking candidates what they earned in a previous role. Employers should nevertheless consider whether the question is relevant and how the information is used.
Basing an offer on previous earnings can carry historic inequalities into a new employment relationship. A candidate who was underpaid by a previous employer may remain underpaid if each subsequent salary is calculated by adding a percentage to the last one.
Previous earnings also say very little about the value and responsibilities of the new position. An alternative approach is to assess the value of the role itself and consider where the candidate should sit within the available range, based on relevant experience, skills and responsibilities.
The Government’s wider evidence gathering identifies salary history questions as one of several pay transparency issues, alongside salary disclosure, access to pay structures and information about progression decisions. Whether salary history questions will be addressed through these proposals remains to be seen.
Greater Transparency May Lead to Employee Questions
Businesses also need to consider the employee relations consequences of wider salary disclosure. An existing employee who discovers that a vacancy is advertised above their own salary may feel undervalued, even where there is a legitimate reason for the difference. A poorly handled explanation could damage trust, affect retention or escalate into a formal grievance.
Managers may face more questions about how salary bands operate, what employees must demonstrate to progress through them and when pay decisions are reviewed. Clear and consistent explanations reduce uncertainty, and resolving concerns early, whether informally or through mediation, is almost always preferable to a dispute. Employers should avoid giving conflicting accounts of whether salaries are based on experience, market conditions, individual performance or another factor.
The consultation does not yet establish what information employers will be required to publish or how detailed it must be. These practical questions will matter a great deal when the Government decides how to proceed.
Discrimination Risks Extend Beyond Gender
Although much of the discussion around pay transparency focuses on the gender pay gap, salary decisions can create wider discrimination risks.
A recruitment or pay practice that disadvantages people who share a protected characteristic could amount to indirect discrimination, unless the employer can show it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Subjective ideas about leadership potential, cultural fit or the quality of a candidate’s previous employer can also introduce bias into salary decisions. Any criteria used to distinguish between candidates should be relevant to the role and applied consistently.
The Government consultation forms part of a broader review of the equal pay framework, including how protections operate for disabled people and workers from ethnic minority backgrounds. The potential implications therefore extend well beyond differences in pay between men and women.
What Happens Next?
The consultation remains open until 27 October 2026, and the Government has not yet confirmed whether the proposals will become law or what the final requirements would look like.
Important questions remain, including what form salary information should take, whether benefits and variable pay should be included, and how employers will be expected to deal with legitimate flexibility within a salary range.
Employers may wish to follow the consultation as it develops and consider how greater pay transparency would interact with their existing recruitment and pay arrangements. More detailed action may be appropriate once the Government publishes its response and any proposed legislation.
Preparing for Greater Scrutiny
Salary transparency could help employers attract candidates, reduce unsuccessful recruitment processes and demonstrate a commitment to fair treatment. It could equally reveal inconsistencies that have developed through individual negotiation, managerial discretion and changing market conditions.
The key issue is therefore broader than whether employers may eventually need to include a figure in job adverts. Greater transparency will lead candidates and employees to ask how salaries are determined, why comparable roles are paid differently and what evidence supports those decisions.
Our Employment & HR Team can advise on equal pay, discrimination, salary structures, recruitment processes and workplace grievances, and we have also written about your rights and options where a breach of contract has already occurred. To discuss how the Government’s proposals could affect your business, please call us on 01253 362 500.
Disclaimer: The content of this website blog is for general awareness and insight. This is not legal or professional advice and readers should not act upon the information provided, they should seek professional advice based on their own particular circumstances. The law may have changed since this article was published.
FAQs
Do employers currently have to include a salary in job adverts?
No. There is no general legal requirement to publish salary information in job adverts in the UK. The Government is consulting on proposals that would change this, but no new rules have been confirmed.
When would the new pay transparency rules take effect?
No date has been set. The consultation closes on 27 October 2026, and any changes would require legislation afterwards. The Government has indicated that employers would be given time to prepare before new requirements take effect.
Can we pay a new recruit more than an existing employee doing the same job?
Sometimes, but only where the difference can be explained by a genuine material factor such as additional experience, specialist skills, greater responsibility or market conditions. A difference with no clear, objective explanation carries legal and employee relations risk.
Is the gender pay gap the same as unequal pay?
No. The gender pay gap compares average earnings across groups of men and women. Unequal pay is where men and women are paid differently for equal work without lawful justification. An employer can have a gender pay gap without breaking equal pay law, and vice versa.
Can we still ask candidates about their salary history?
Yes, there is currently no prohibition. However, basing offers on previous earnings can carry historic underpayment into your business and may contribute to pay disparities. Many employers now assess the value of the role instead.
