Consultation outcome

Fair pay agreement process in adult social care: government response

Updated 16 July 2026

Ministerial foreword

Workers’ rights are in this government’s DNA. Since coming into office, this government has passed the Employment Rights Bill, strengthened sick pay and raised the minimum wage. It’s all part of our Plan for Change and the Plan to Make Work Pay.

We are getting on with the change that people voted for at the general election, and social care is no exception. That is why we are laying the foundations for a national care service, starting with our care workforce.

This fair pay agreement will mean the care workforce can get long overdue boosts to their pay, terms and professional development. It is a national agreement, negotiated between unions and employers and backed by half a billion pounds for the first agreement alone. It is a major step forward to improve pay and conditions and give staff the status and respect that they deserve - not just once, but year on year.

Last year, we were proud to launch the public consultation which put forward proposals on how the fair pay agreement process should work. I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to the consultation and share their views with us. I also want to thank our partners, including trade unions, social care employers and local government, for working with us to shape the proposals. Your engagement is key to setting this groundbreaking policy up for success. 

This document sets out a breakdown of the responses we received, and the action we have taken as a result. Fair pay agreements will be negotiated by an independent body, that will have the freedom to negotiate on pay, terms and wider matters. The government will set an annual funding envelope. Within that envelope, it will be for trade unions and employers to negotiate an agreement that both improves workers’ terms and supports the long-term sustainability of the sector.

We will now work towards laying regulations in Parliament and setting up the new negotiating body ahead of the first round of negotiations in 2027. The convening power of an independent ASC Negotiating Body will be groundbreaking. It gives workers and employers a stronger voice when engaging with local and central government. The fair pay agreement will help to rebuild a social care system fit for the future and allow us to continue to build a productive, experienced and skilled workforce who feel recognised and rewarded for the invaluable work they do.

It is also firmly in the interest of those who receive care. Better pay and conditions for staff will, in turn, improve the quality of care people are receiving. Paying the adult social care workforce fairly and treating them with respect will help to address the serious recruitment and retention challenges in the adult social care sector - at the time of writing, almost 1 in 4 are leaving their roles each year.

Like millions of others, I will never forget the care workers who helped my family after my mother was diagnosed with dementia. I cannot ever begin to repay their compassion, but I will certainly give it my all as Minister of State for Care.

Stephen Kinnock

Minister of State for Care

Executive summary

This document sets out the government’s response to the public consultation on the design of a fair pay agreement process for the adult social care (ASC) workforce in England.

Our plan to Make Work Pay sets out an ambitious plan to ensure employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people, raising living standards and contributing to economic growth. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is the first phase of delivering our plan to Make Work Pay.

The act provides the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care with powers to make secondary legislation on the process for reaching a fair pay agreement. This consultation sought views on proposals for that process and on how a sector‑wide collective bargaining framework should operate, including:

• governance
• scope
• negotiation processes
• implementation
• enforcement

The consultation ran from 30 September 2025 to 16 January 2026, with an easy read version closing on 6 March 2026. In total, 1,077 responses were received to the standard consultation, alongside additional off‑platform submissions, and 83 responses to the easy read version. Respondents included:

• providers
• workers
• trade unions
• local authorities
• commissioners
• people with lived experience
• self‑funders

We ran an extensive engagement programme alongside the consultation, with consistent feedback across stakeholder groups highlighting the critical importance of:

• funding sustainability
• commissioning reform
• clear guidance
• effective implementation

We have now analysed those responses and used them to inform the final shape of the fair pay agreement process in adult social care, which is summarised below. Further details about the consultation responses and the position the government has adopted on these issues are set out in part 2 of this document, ‘Outcomes of the consultation’.

Negotiation infrastructure

We will establish an ASC Negotiating Body to operate at arm’s length from ministers, overseen by an independent chair. The body will be supported by a secretariat staffed by civil servants within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will retain responsibility for appointments and in ratifying agreements but will not intervene in day‑to‑day negotiations.

Representation on the ASC Negotiating Body will be based on equal numbers of worker and employer representatives. Worker representation will be co-ordinated by the Trades Union Congress (TUC). Employer representation will be co-ordinated by the Care Provider Alliance (CPA), with membership reflecting the diversity of the provider market. Local government will not vote on final agreements but will have a formal, multi‑faceted role in the negotiation process, including structured engagement, provision of evidence on affordability and advisory input to the chair.

The first negotiation cycle is expected to commence in 2027 following the issuing of a remit letter from the Secretary of State. The letter will set out the maximum funding available to councils to cover increased costs resulting from the fair pay agreement, which has been agreed at £500 million for the first year. Negotiations are expected to run annually, but this may be reviewed in future.

Coverage and scope

The ASC Negotiating Body will cover all adult social care workers as defined in the Employment Rights Act 2025, excluding those already covered by other national collective bargaining and pay-setting arrangements, including the NHS Pay Review Body and Agenda for Change (AfC) contract and the National Joint Council (NJC) for Local Government Services, although this exclusion will be reviewed after 3 years.

Fair pay agreements apply to the paid adult social care workforce, and therefore do not cover unpaid carers. There are also parts of the paid workforce that are not within coverage, specifically self‑employed workers and those working under informal care arrangements. This is because they are not covered by the definition of ‘social care worker’ set out in the Employment Rights Act 2025. Many choose self-employment for the flexibility it offers, including in setting their own pay and conditions. It would therefore not be appropriate for negotiations on pay and conditions to include these groups. We intend to monitor and assess the impact on self-employed workers after a fair pay agreement is delivered, and issues relating to self-employment will be considered in the upcoming consultation on employment status, including how to enhance protections for self-employed workers.

The statutory remit of the ASC Negotiating Body will include pay and terms and conditions. It can also consider wider employment matters such as:

• training
• career progression
• people and culture policies
• additional benefits

The ASC Negotiating Body will have the freedom to choose which issues to focus on each year within the parameters of the remit letter, and the final shape of the proposed agreement will be down to the ASC Negotiating Body to agree.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement

Once an agreement is reached, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for review. They will decide whether it is affordable within the funding envelope alongside analysis of impacts and deliverability, before ratification in Parliament. Once ratified, the agreement will become legally enforceable through workers’ contracts. Guidance on implementation and compliance will be co‑produced and co‑published by DHSC and the ASC Negotiating Body. Enforcement of pay terms will sit with the Fair Work Agency.

Next steps

The timeline for implementation is as follows:

• regulations will be laid in 2026
• the ASC Negotiating Body will be set up and the chair and members appointed in 2026 to 2027
• negotiations for the financial year 2028 to 2029 will begin around April 2027
• the first fair pay agreement will come into effect in April 2028

All of the above is set out in detail in this response, which is broken into 3 parts:

• part 1 sets out the background, purpose of the consultation and the analysis methodology
• part 2 details the government response to each part of the consultation
• part 3 provides a detailed analysis of the responses received

Part 1: context

Background

Adult social care is a historically low paid sector - most care workers are paid at or just above the National Living Wage.

We know that our 1.5 million-strong adult social care workforce is providing vital care and support to people of all ages and with diverse needs every day. The work they do is essential in helping people maintain their quality of life. However, the sector has challenges with recruitment and retention, and evidence shows low pay is one of the main reasons for this.

A fair pay agreement is an agreement, ratified in law, that will set minimum standards for pay and terms and conditions, as well as improving training opportunities and career progression for the care workforce. The agreement will be reached through sectoral collective bargaining, where workers, represented by trade unions, will negotiate with employer representatives. The negotiations are backed by additional funding earmarked for a fair pay agreement.

About the consultation

The Employment Rights Act 2025 enables the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to set out the process for reaching a fair pay agreement in secondary legislation. The consultation sought to gather views on our proposals for the design of a fair pay agreement process in England. It launched on 30 September 2025 and closed on 16 January 2026. We also published an easy read version of the consultation on 21 November 2025, which closed on 6 March 2026.

The consultation covered:

• who and what should be in scope of negotiations
• how the negotiation process could work, including:
• who is involved
• how disputes are resolved
• how the agreement could be implemented and complied with

The sections in the consultation documents described the components of the fair pay agreement process and set out some design options for each element. In some areas, we set out specific recommendations or options, and for others we were seeking general views and insights on the issues.

Engagement with the sector

During the consultation period we ran an engagement programme to help us reach a broader audience, to raise awareness about fair pay agreements and encourage responses to the consultation. Between September 2025 and March 2026 ministers and officials spoke at 84 events. Engagement ranged from larger events, such as the National Children and Adult Services Conference and the Care Show, to smaller sessions including online webinars promoted by trade unions, providers and local government.

Four themes consistently emerged across all stakeholder types: 

• concerns around the adequacy of funding and whether it will reach frontline staff to have the intended impact of improving reward and recognition
• a belief that commissioning reform is necessary to support the delivery of fair pay agreements
• that the ASC Negotiating Body would benefit from broader representation or input, especially from smaller providers, personal assistants, lived‑experience groups and specialist services
• calls for clearer guidance and communication about all aspects of the policy but particularly around supporting implementation and compliance

Summary of responses

In total, we received 1,077 responses to the standard online consultation. We also received 55 extra responses from respondents separately to a mailbox. Many of these were copies of responses also submitted through the survey. We received 83 responses to the easy read online consultation and 6 separate responses to a mailbox.

The survey asked closed questions usually followed by open-text questions to gather more detail on the response provided. The total number of responses varied across questions.

The open-text questions in the consultation and the easy read survey were optional.

When we mention the themes that we saw in responses we are referring to the themes we saw in both the standard and easy read consultation. The figures reported in this response are based on responses to the standard consultation unless otherwise stated.

Part 2: outcomes from the consultation

In this part of the response, we will briefly outline:

• the issues respondents shared their views on
• a short summary of the general response themes
• the government’s response and final position on each issue

The full summary of responses can be seen in part 3 of this document.

The ASC Negotiating Body

Covering the form and operations of the negotiating body.

Form of the ASC Negotiating Body

Background and summary of responses

It is important that the ASC Negotiating Body operates independently from government with strong governance and support structures. Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on the proposal to establish the ASC Negotiating Body as an advisory non-departmental public body.

Many respondents expressed support for this proposal, emphasising the importance of independence and fairness. Some particularly highlighted the importance of appointing an independent and impartial chair. Respondents also emphasised the need for transparency and accountability as guiding principles for the ASC Negotiating Body.

Government position

Maintaining independence from central government is crucial to secure sector confidence and ensure credibility of negotiations, while retaining appropriate ministerial accountability. To achieve this, we will establish the ASC Negotiating Body as an advisory non-departmental public body.

The ASC Negotiating Body will operate at an arm’s length from ministers, providing independent expert advice relating to fair pay agreement negotiations. The ASC Negotiating Body will be responsible for running negotiations and ultimately putting forward proposed agreements to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for ratification. The Secretary of State will also remain accountable to Parliament for its overall performance but will not intervene in day-to-day operations. As it will operate independently from government, the ASC Negotiating Body will have the freedom to approach negotiations as it sees fit.

The ASC Negotiating Body will represent England only, reflecting that the Employment Rights Act 2025 provides separate powers for Scottish and Welsh ministers to establish their own negotiating bodies.

Supporting the ASC Negotiating Body

Background and summary of responses

To help negotiations go smoothly, the ASC Negotiating Body will need appropriate secretariat support and will be led by an independent chair. The consultation proposed 2 options for establishing a secretariat function to support the ASC Negotiating Body:

• option 1: staffed by civil servants
• option 2: contracted out to an external delivery partner

There was no clear majority response between the 2 options. Respondents who supported a Civil Service staffed secretariat cited reasons including cost effectiveness, impartiality and professionalism. Respondents who supported a secretariat delivered by an external partner cited reasons such as independence, expertise in adult social care and business management, and accountability.

Government position

We have carefully considered all responses and recognise the benefits of both proposals. The option being taken forward is option 1: staffed by civil servants, to support cost-effectiveness, continuity through cycles and impartiality. The secretariat will be provided by DHSC.

The secretariat will provide administrative, analytical and operational support to the chair and members, and will not have a role in determining negotiation outcomes. The ASC Negotiating Body will be led by an independent chair to oversee the process, bring members together, lead negotiations and ensure all voices are heard.

Appointment of the chair will be through a regulated ministerial public appointment, to support transparency, fairness and independence in the appointment process. We will design a fair and transparent process to enable appointment of voting and non-voting members to the ASC Negotiating Body.

Representation: proposed membership of the ASC Negotiating Body

The ASC Negotiating Body will conduct a form of sectoral bargaining. This will bring together equal representation of worker and employer interests and, where appropriate, non-voting members (for example, observers or independent specialist advisers).

It is essential that the Secretary of State retains ultimate responsibility for appointments, including the ability to impose conditions on appointments, to ensure appropriate accountability and to ensure the ASC Negotiating Body can successfully create fair pay agreements and represent the voice of workers and employers in the sector.

Worker representation

Background and summary of responses

The ‘worker representation’ section of the consultation outlined a proposal developed by the TUC working with partner trade unions for how workers could be represented in negotiations. It proposed that UNISON, GMB, Unite and the Royal College of Nursing, working with the TUC as the convener, would form an adult social care fair pay agreement trade union group. This group would represent workers on the ASC Negotiating Body, co-ordinate the different worker representatives and submit membership recommendations to the Secretary of State.

A clear majority of respondents agreed with this proposal.

Many respondents supported the involvement of trade unions as they trusted them to champion workers’ interests and believed them to have the relevant skills and experience to do so. Many also flagged that unionisation is low in the sector, and a minority expressed opposition to trade union involvement.

Government position

We will proceed with the proposal set out in the consultation. The TUC will convene UNISON, GMB, Unite and the Royal College of Nursing to form an adult social care fair pay agreement trade union group.

Regulations will require an equal number of seats for workers and employer representatives. The Secretary of State will invite the trade union group to nominate individuals, and will then independently review and appoint members accordingly.

Members of this group will be appointed ahead of negotiations beginning in April 2027.

Employer representation

Background and summary of responses

Similar to the proposed trade union group, the consultation proposed that there will be an organisation that will convene employers, submit membership recommendations to the Secretary of State and co-ordinate employer-side participation in negotiations. We proposed that CPA takes this role.

A clear majority of respondents agreed with this proposal for co-ordinating and selecting employer representatives. Many who agreed with the proposal referenced the importance of employer representation in general and expressed support for CPA as the convener.

Many respondents stressed the need for employer representation that reflects the diversity of the sector. Some raised concerns about large or for-profit providers having a stronger voice and ensuring small and medium-sized employers are considered.

Government position

We will proceed with the proposal set out in the consultation. CPA will lead the employer representation side of the ASC Negotiating Body. Selection of employer representatives will be co-ordinated by CPA, underpinned by analysis of the social care sector, to ensure that a range of type, sizes and specialisms of employers are represented.

Regulations will require an equal number of seats for worker and employer representatives. The Secretary of State will invite CPA to nominate individuals, and will then independently review and appoint members, accordingly.

Members of this group will be appointed ahead of negotiations beginning in April 2027.

The role of local government

Background and summary of responses

The consultation proposed a package of measures to ensure local government has a strong role in the negotiation process. This included the following:

• specifying within the remit letter that the ASC Negotiating Body must consult with local government and consider their views
• building the role of local government into the terms of reference for the ASC Negotiating Body and the roles and responsibilities of the chair
• local government representatives will be able to provide the Secretary of State with a written assessment of the proposed fair pay agreement, which the Secretary of State must have due regard to when deciding whether to ratify an agreement

Overall, a majority of respondents agreed with our proposed approach. Notably, the majority of providers that responded agreed with the proposal, while the majority of local authority respondents disagreed. Many respondents who agreed expressed views that some level of local government involvement would be crucial and would bring useful local knowledge.

Some respondents felt that local government should have a stronger role, for reasons including local government’s role in implementation, their statutory duties and the risks of a fair pay agreement creating significant financial pressures. However, other respondents raised concerns about local government involvement, citing risks that it may slow or block progress, and undermine national consistency.

Government position

We will proceed with the proposal outlined in the consultation to represent local government interests during negotiations.

Alongside this, to further strengthen the role of local government in the negotiation process, we will establish a clear process of engagement and influence. This will allow the ASC Negotiating Body multiple points of structured engagement with local government throughout the negotiation process.

This process will include:

• enabling local government representatives to provide data and evidence to help set out affordability ahead of negotiations, as part of baseline evidence setting
• consulting local government to acquire and share evidence on affordability and deliverability throughout negotiations
• creating a role for local government representative(s) as non-voting member(s) available to the chair and members of the ASC Negotiating Body

Other members 

Background and summary of responses

The consultation asked if there were any other organisations that should be members of the ASC Negotiating Body.

Just under half of respondents thought that there were other organisations that should be members of the ASC Negotiating Body, with others either saying ‘no’ or had no substantive response. Those who answered ‘yes’ were asked to share which other organisations should be members of the ASC Negotiating Body. Suggestions in open-text responses included organisations that represent people who draw on care and support, local authorities and NHS and/or integrated care boards (ICBs).

Government position

We will not be appointing other members to the ASC Negotiating Body for the first cycle of negotiations. This is so negotiations are led by representatives of workers and employers, to create a process that reflects sectoral bargaining.

We recognise it is important for the chair and members of the ASC Negotiating Body to draw on contributions from others during negotiations, where they wish to do so. We will make provision for the Secretary of State to appoint non-voting members to the ASC Negotiating Body in regulations. We expect the ASC Negotiating Body to take steps to ensure that the voice of those who benefit from care is always included.

Self-funders

Background and summary of responses

The consultation asked how the interests of people who pay for their own care should be considered as part of the negotiation process.

In open-text responses many emphasised the importance of considering self-funders’ interests and views on the basis that they form a large part of the market and would be directly impacted. Many also emphasised that there must be clear communication to help self-funders understand the impacts of any fair pay agreement.

A minority of respondents raised concerns about representation of self-funders’ interests, sharing views that everyone who receives care or support should be represented equally, and that self-funders would be motivated by affordability rather than fair pay for workers.

Government position

We will not appoint additional members to the ASC Negotiating Body to specifically represent the interests of self-funders, due to the complexities of appointing a representative for this group.

We will, however, support their representation through other means including:

• the remit letter for the ASC Negotiating Body to consider affordability for all purchasers of care, including self-funders
• that points of engagement for self-funders are created throughout the negotiation process by the ASC Negotiating Body chair and secretariat
• for impacts on self-funders to be considered in published impact assessments when a fair pay agreement is ratified

NHS commissioners

Background and summary of responses

The consultation asked how the interests of NHS commissioners should be considered as part of the negotiation process.

Many respondents expressed support for NHS commissioners being involved in some capacity given their relevant expertise and because they will be impacted as funders of social care.

However, some respondents expressed opposition or scepticism to NHS involvement, disagreeing with the involvement of commissioners in general or opposing on the basis of a general distrust in commissioners engaging in good faith because of a conflict of interest with their commissioning role.

Government position

We will not appoint additional members to the ASC Negotiating Body to specifically represent the interests of NHS commissioners. We will instead ensure that the interests of NHS commissioners are considered through other means, including:

• the remit letter for the ASC Negotiating Body to consider affordability for all purchasers of care, including NHS commissioners
• that points of engagement for NHS commissioners are created throughout the negotiation process by the ASC Negotiating Body chair and secretariat
• for impacts on NHS commissioners to be considered in published impact assessments when a fair pay agreement is ratified

Appointments process

Background and summary of responses

The consultation described the proposed approach for appointing members: that bargaining sides will be responsible for determining how to share seats among themselves, and that each side will submit membership nominations to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for review and approval. The consultation specifically asked for input on the criteria which should be applied when appointing members to the ASC Negotiating Body.

Many respondents conveyed the importance of ASC Negotiating Body members having experience of working in adult social care. In addition, many emphasised the importance of representing the diversity of the employer sector, including geography, employer size and type, and care provided, and stressed that representative bodies should consult directly with those they represent.

Further themes included the importance of expertise in funding and commissioning, collective bargaining, employment law and labour economics. Respondents also consistently highlighted the need for independence and impartiality, and for members to uphold core social care values such as empathy, compassion and constructive engagement.

Government position

We have decided to retain a flexible approach to setting membership criteria for the ASC Negotiating Body. Regulations will specify only 2 desirable criteria for appointment:

• knowledge or understanding of the adult social care sector, including operational delivery
• experience or knowledge of employment negotiations and industrial relations

This reflects consultation feedback on the importance of members having a strong understanding of the practical realities of adult social care delivery and the values that underpin the sector. While only 2 criteria will be set out in regulations, the appointments process may require other criteria that considers the overall balance of skills, experience and perspectives on the ASC Negotiating Body, including the ability to engage constructively, act impartially and uphold core adult social care values.

This approach will allow flexibility over time and support an appropriate balance of expertise on the ASC Negotiating Body, reflecting the evolving needs of the sector.

Negotiation cycle and process

Our intent is to establish a clear, structured negotiation cycle for the ASC Negotiating Body, from the initiation of negotiations through to implementation.

How negotiations would start

Background and summary of responses

This section of the consultation outlined a proposal that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would issue a formal ‘remit letter’ to the ASC Negotiating Body to commence each cycle of negotiations. This letter would set out:

• any priority areas that the government would like to be considered, which could include specific roles, or areas of pay or certain terms and conditions
• any other factors that the ASC Negotiating Body should consider - such as government priorities for sector reform - or conditions the agreement must meet. This includes the annual funding envelope, which is the maximum funding available to councils to cover increased costs resulting from the fair pay agreement set by the government. Within that, it will be for trade unions and employers to negotiate an agreement that both improves workers’ terms and supports the long-term sustainability of this incredibly important sector
• the timelines by which the ASC Negotiating Body should reach an agreement and submit this to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for consideration and ratification

Many respondents to this question noted that the remit letter should include explicit details around funding and funding mechanisms. Respondents also suggested the remit letter should include expectations around how the ASC Negotiating Body will procure and use evidence to support decision-making, as well as transparency and reporting requirements.

Some respondents emphasised the remit letter should be clear about longer-term objectives and ask the ASC Negotiating Body to explore issues beyond pay. Additionally, many respondents suggested the remit letter should address potential differences in impact for different types of employers or areas of the sector as well as the specific roles of local authorities and the NHS, especially considering their commissioning role.

Government position

Following this feedback, we are establishing a structure whereby the remit letter will be able to set out any priority areas for government, including:

• coverage and remit: the terms and conditions, wider employment matters and specific roles in the workforce that the government would require to be considered for that cycle of negotiations
• due regard to contextual factors: the factors that the ASC Negotiating Body must and/or may have regard to, for example, economic conditions, affordability, workforce evidence, any relevant activities of other bodies
• conditions: conditions that must be met in relation to any agreement (this will include the maximum funding envelope for that cycle that has been agreed by central government)
• timelines: the timeline for negotiations including a deadline by which the ASC Negotiating Body must submit an agreement to the Secretary of State
• information and evidence: any requirements as to information and evidence to be provided to the ASC Negotiating Body
• local government: that the ASC Negotiating Body must consult with local government and consider their views
• NHS commissioners and self-funders: to consider affordability for these groups

The inclusion of these factors is intended to ensure that the ASCNB has the flexibility to discuss and negotiate on issues within its full statutory remit, as well as accounting for government priorities and conditions such as the maximum funding envelope for that cycle of negotiations.

In relation to other factors raised by consultation responses, these are all important elements that will be incorporated throughout the process. Reflecting the principles of collective bargaining, we will not prescribe specific evidence requirements within the remit letter, allowing the negotiating parties to determine their own positions and the evidence underpinning them. The ASC Negotiating Body will, however, be required to provide government with analysis when submitting any agreement, demonstrating how it has met the conditions set out in the remit letter.

For the first fair pay agreement, our intention is to provide the ASC Negotiating Body with flexibility to determine its priorities within the overall remit, while maintaining a clear focus on delivering a single negotiation covering pay and terms and conditions for implementation in 2028. We recognise the importance of longer-term objectives, and this first agreement should be seen as a foundation for future cycles. Subsequent negotiation rounds could consider multi-year agreements, in line with the ambition to publish multi-year Local Government Finance Settlements, and a broader set of priorities for the sector, including any other areas within the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit.

How negotiations will work

Background and summary of responses

Once the ASC Negotiating Body receives the remit letter, it can begin negotiations, led by the chair and supported by the secretariat. Before formal negotiations, the ASC Negotiating Body may carry out engagement and evidence-gathering. The ASC Negotiating Body will have freedom to approach negotiations as they see fit within the remit letter and reach a draft agreement, which each bargaining side will then consult on with its members before deciding whether to submit it to the Secretary of State for approval.

Around half of respondents agreed with our proposal, with some highlighting the importance of a clear, transparent framework in open-text responses. Many respondents expressed a view that evidence‑gathering, modelling and assessment of impacts on providers, local government, staff and care users should be a required part of the process. Respondents raised the risk of non‑agreement and the need for clear contingency arrangements, as well as timeline implications, including risks associated with backdated agreements and the importance of alignment with wider funding cycles.

Government position

Within the framework of a yearly negotiating cycle and a remit-setting letter as described above, the ASC Negotiating Body will have flexibility to determine how negotiations are conducted within the principles of collective bargaining.

The ASC Negotiating Body will develop its own terms of reference ahead of negotiations to establish specific procedures. This may include an evidence‑gathering phase before and/or during negotiations, and could include assessment of impacts on care users, staff, providers and local government.

Each negotiation cycle will be time‑limited to support meaningful bargaining while allowing sufficient time for implementation and business confidence following ratification. While regulations will not fix a set duration, the Secretary of State will set a deadline through the remit letter, with flexibility to extend where appropriate. The government will set a 6‑month negotiation period, running from April, with provision for a short extension or re‑negotiation where required. This approach is intended to ensure agreements are in place ahead of the start of the financial year, avoiding backdating and supporting alignment with local government funding cycles.

If agreement is not reached within the set timeframe, the Secretary of State may exercise their powers to determine pay and terms and conditions and other matters to enable implementation from the start of the financial year.

How negotiations will conclude

Background and summary of responses

Once negotiations are concluded and an agreement has been reached, the ASC Negotiating Body would then be required to submit any agreement it reaches to the Secretary of State for approval.

The consultation asked respondents for views on our proposal that each of the bargaining sides manages their own voting system, with a requirement that each side simply informs the chair whether they can support a proposed settlement.

The majority of respondents supported our proposed approach, viewing it as a simple, practical and well-established method that aligns with existing collective bargaining practices and respects the autonomy of different groups. Many emphasised the importance of ensuring the process is transparent, equitable and supported by appropriate oversight, safeguards and guidance.

A smaller number of respondents raised concerns about potential government influence, complexity and whether a binary decision for or against a specific agreement would capture the full range of views within groups.

Government position

An agreement will have been reached when both bargaining sides have agreed the proposed terms and inform the chair, who will then submit this to the Secretary of State. ASC Negotiating Body members will determine their own detailed voting mechanism through their terms of reference.  

A negotiation support package will be made available to the sector ahead of negotiations to support capability building, enable effective participation and help ensure a representative cross-section of the adult social care sector is engaged from the outset. The fund is intended to support participants to accurately represent those affected by fair pay agreement negotiations.

Timeline for negotiations

Background and summary of responses

We want to allow around 6 months for negotiations, leaving 6 months for implementation. We have considered how much time to allow for negotiations, how to align timelines with local government and employer budget setting, and to allow enough time for implementation.

Respondents were asked whether they thought 6 months will be enough time for an agreement to be reached in negotiations and whether 6 months will be enough time for the sector to prepare for implementation of the agreement.

With regard to a 6-month negotiation period, a majority of respondents considered the proposed timeframe to be sufficient. However, a significant minority raised concerns, most often citing the complexity and diversity of the adult social care sector, noting that differences in employer types, locations and workforce conditions could make agreement more difficult and time-consuming. Respondents also highlighted the need for adequate time to consult across the sector and consider funding implications, particularly given administrative pressures and the importance of aligning with local authority processes.

Some respondents suggested that the first agreement may take longer as participants build relationships and become familiar with the process, and that timelines may need to remain flexible depending on how well the process is structured. Conversely, others felt a shorter, capped timeline could help maintain focus and confidence in the process, avoiding unnecessary delays.

With regard to a 6-month implementation period, many emphasised that timelines would be highly dependent on the level of funding available, noting that implementation could take significantly longer where costs need to be absorbed within existing provider or local authority budgets.

A number of respondents raised concerns about the scale of organisational change required across the sector, including updates to payroll, contracts, commissioning arrangements and workforce planning, which could take longer to fully implement. Respondents also highlighted the need for sufficient time to plan budgets and align with local authority fee-setting cycles, particularly where implementation may fall within the financial year.

Those who considered the timeframe to be sufficient typically emphasised that this would rely on clear guidance, well-structured timelines and adequate funding. Some also highlighted the urgency of improving pay and conditions, while noting that the sector has had advance notice of the reforms.

Government position

The government recognises that respondents held a range of views on whether a 6-month negotiation and implementation period would be sufficient. Having considered this feedback, the government has determined that a clear and time-bound 6-month negotiation period, followed by 6 months for implementation is appropriate and necessary to provide certainty to the sector and ensure alignment with local government budget-setting cycles. This will support timely agreement, review and ratification, helping to minimise disruption to local authority finances and adult social care service delivery.

The government also recognises the importance of preparedness and parity of representation across the sector. As respondents noted, the sector has had advance notice of fair pay agreements since 2024. In addition, one aim of the negotiation support package that will be made available ahead of negotiations is to increase awareness and understanding of the fair pay agreement process and implementation across the breadth and diversity of adult social care services and settings.  

The government is clear that any agreement will be implemented within the funding parameters set out by central government through the remit letter. This, alongside alignment with local authority budgeting processes, will help ensure that agreements are deliverable and sustainable in practice. This timeline allows government, jointly with the ASC Negotiating Body, to produce guidance that supports the implementation of the agreement and raises awareness of workers’ rights.

Coverage and remit

There are a wide variety of job roles within adult social care, and a long list of things the negotiations could include. This section of the consultation asked questions refining and defining these 2 things.

These questions apply to the coverage and remit of the ASC Negotiating Body in the long-term. This does not mean that all elements of every fair pay agreement will apply to all roles, services or settings. Ultimately the details of fair pay agreements will be subject to negotiations, the decision of the ASC Negotiating Body, the remit letter and other factors.

Determining coverage of the ASC Negotiating Body

Background and summary of responses

Coverage refers to which roles in the workforce should be included in the scope of the ASC Negotiating Body.

We asked organisations and individual employers of personal assistants whether: any roles they employ may fall outside the definition of an adult social care worker and ASC Negotiating Body coverage, how we could best help them determine whether their workers’ were within the coverage of the ASC Negotiating Body, and which sections of the workforce should be included or excluded from the negotiations.

Roles which respondents were specifically concerned might not be included in the definition of an adult social care worker were: ancillary roles (for example, HR, finance, training leads, activities staff, cooks, administrators, housekeepers, maintenance), and people working across health and social care.

Respondents also emphasised the importance of clear guidance and role definitions when responding to the question on how we could best support organisations to determine whether workers will be within the coverage of the ASC Negotiating Body.

On sections of the workforce that should be either included or excluded from coverage, there was generally support to cover all settings, services and roles. There was a range of views on excluding some sections of the workforce (represented in section 3 below), including parts of the workforce already covered under another collective bargaining or pay-setting process.

There are parts of the paid workforce that are not within the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage. Specifically, those that are self-employed or working under informal care arrangements. This is because they are not covered by the definition of ‘social care worker’ set out in the Employment Rights Act 2025. We asked for information on whether the ASC Negotiating Body could affect those that are self-employed or working under informal arrangements, and responses highlighted the need to consider fairness, inclusivity and equality, and the potential impact on workers and employers of self-employed workers as a result of not being covered by the ASC Negotiating Body.

Government position

Following consideration of the responses, we will not make further exclusions to the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage, except for excluding those already subject to existing national bargaining or pay-setting arrangements (see below). Broad coverage will ensure all relevant adult social care workers are covered by the ASC Negotiating Body and able to benefit from the outcomes of a fair pay agreement. This approach will also allow maximum flexibility for the ASC Negotiating Body to determine the scope of its negotiations.

We will support organisations to determine whether their workforce falls within coverage of a negotiated fair pay agreement by publishing guidance. In line with consultation responses, we will look to make use of clear definitions, visuals and targeted communications, to ensure there is a clear understanding across the sector.

We acknowledge the concerns raised as a result of self-employed workers and those working under informal arrangements being outside of the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage. We will continue to work to address bogus self-employment and its impact on the care sector and intend to monitor and assess the impact on self-employed workers after a fair pay agreement is delivered.

Care sector workers employed by local authorities and the NHS

Background and summary of responses

The Employment Rights Act 2025 allows for all adult social care workers, other than the self-employed, to be covered by the ASC Negotiating Body. This includes those employed predominantly in the provision of social care by the NHS or local authorities, such as nurses, occupational therapists, social workers and healthcare assistants, who may be covered by existing collective bargaining and pay-setting arrangements. Specifically, this refers to workers covered by the NHS Pay Review Body and AfC contract, and the NJC for Local Government Services. The consultation sought views on whether either of these sets of workers should also be covered by the ASC Negotiating Body.

There were mixed views from respondents regarding their inclusion. There were 2 separate questions covering the inclusion of NJC workers and AfC workers.

Across both questions, just under half of the respondents supported their inclusion while the remaining responses favoured exclusion, or not agreeing with either position. Overall, responses did not indicate a clear majority view. Both responses reflected the ambition to align workforces to create fairness and consistency. Respondents who supported inclusion emphasised parity and avoiding a ‘2-tier’ workforce, while those opposed focused on practical risks, unintended consequences and differences between the workforces.

On AfC workers specifically, respondents emphasised the importance of increasing alignment between health and social care pay and terms and conditions (for example by using AfC as a benchmark), even where views differed on formal inclusion.

Justifications for excluding NJC and AfC workers were similar. For those opposing inclusion, the rationale was largely grounded in institutional and legal considerations. Those opposing argued that these workers already benefit from established collective bargaining arrangements, and that including them would potentially create a risk of duplication, undermining existing agreements, and leading to equal pay claims. There was a shared view that these workers already benefit from comparatively stronger pay and terms and conditions and therefore should not be the immediate priority for intervention.

For those who opposed NJC inclusion, emphasis was placed on the risks of undermining established collective bargaining and pay-setting arrangements. In AfC responses, there was a stronger focus on funding constraints and feasibility, particularly from adult social care employers.

Across both responses, trade unions generally supported initial exclusion with a view that the ASC Negotiating Body should eventually cover all workers, noting that both AfC and NJC workers were unlikely to benefit from the outcomes of a fair pay agreement in the short term, and therefore advocating for a phased or flexible approach.

Government position

We carefully considered responses relating to whether workers covered by existing national collective bargaining and pay-setting arrangements, including AfC and the NJC, should fall within the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage. We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and the importance respondents placed on protecting the workforce, building towards workforce coherence, and protecting existing national bargaining arrangements.

Having weighed consultation responses alongside legal, operational and workforce considerations, the government has decided that, at this stage, workers directly employed by local authorities or the NHS will be excluded from the ASC Negotiating Body’s initial coverage.

This decision recognises that these workers are covered by established, well‑understood national bargaining frameworks or pay-setting processes, which provide comprehensive protections on pay and terms and conditions. If they were to remain within the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage at this stage, this could risk duplication, complexity and give rise to unintended consequences, and create confusion over bargaining responsibility, as well as the potential displacement or dilution of existing collective bargaining arrangements.

Focusing the ASC Negotiating Body’s on parts of the adult social care workforce not already covered by established bargaining arrangements and pay review processes ensures focus on workers with the weakest representation and bargaining power. This enables the ASC Negotiating Body to concentrate its efforts where intervention is most needed and where it can have the greatest immediate impact on pay, terms and workforce outcomes, while still allowing flexibility to prioritise different cohorts within scope across successive negotiations.

We also recognise the close labour‑market links between adult social care, the NHS and local government. We will therefore continue to work to ensure strategic alignment between the ASC Negotiating Body and AfC and NJC arrangements.

We recognise that views on coverage may evolve as the ASC Negotiating Body becomes established. We are therefore committing to a review point after 3 years of fair pay agreements have been implemented. This review will be supported by evidence on pay and terms and conditions across the adult social care, health and local government sectors. This review point will assess whether inclusion has become more favourable operationally and logistically, and could then support the wider goal of unifying the social care workforce.

Cross-border workers

Background and summary of responses

This section of the consultation set out how care workers who operate across borders in England, Scotland and Wales could be covered by more than one fair pay agreement.

Adult social care provider organisations were asked to provide evidence of how service delivery and working currently takes place across borders and were invited to provide views on how the government should address circumstances where a worker could be covered by more than one fair pay agreement.

Respondents highlighted that divergent pay and terms and conditions across England, Scotland and Wales would increase administrative burden and costs, particularly where organisations operate across borders. This concern was shared regardless of whether providers said they would reconsider their operations. Respondents emphasised that the scale of impact would depend on how different the systems became, but many stressed that additional complexity would disproportionately affect small and medium-sized providers.

There were also concerns about wider system effects, including workforce instability near borders, with staff potentially moving to areas offering better pay and conditions, and the risk of unfunded pressures where differences are not matched by funding. Some providers stated that cross-border differences already impacted their decisions about where to operate, while others said they already manage cross-border differences successfully so would not reconsider their operations because of this. Many called for greater alignment between nations, with some advocating for a single approach in England, Scotland and Wales to avoid fragmentation.

We also asked members of the adult social care workforce whether cross-border differences would affect their choice of job, where they work and/or where they live. Respondents to this question said their choices would be affected if there were differences in pay and terms and conditions across borders. However, these decisions were often balanced against personal and local factors such as cost of living, quality of life and family ties. Some respondents also pointed out that disparities already exist and drive movement and argued that more consistent pay across Great Britain would improve fairness and stability.

Across both providers and workers, views on how to apply fair pay agreements in cross-border situations reflected a tension between fairness, simplicity and administrative feasibility. While there was broad support for a single, consistent framework to avoid complexity, respondents were split on the preferred mechanism where multiple agreements could apply. Each option (by hours worked, majority location or residency) was seen to offer different advantages in terms of clarity and fairness, but all raised concerns about administrative burden and practical implementation, particularly for employers operating across borders or with staff whose work spans multiple jurisdictions. Trade unions generally favoured an approach based on hours worked, while other stakeholders expressed mixed views, with consistent concerns that any approach could increase complexity, risk errors, and place additional strain on smaller providers and back-office staff.

Government position

We recognise that respondents were concerned about the divergence of pay, terms and conditions on the social care sectors in England, Scotland and Wales. We will therefore direct the ASC Negotiating Body in the remit letter to consider the pay policy across each nation and the impact of divergence in border regions during the negotiation of an agreement.

The UK government is grateful to both the Scottish and Welsh Government for their close collaboration on fair pay agreements, and will continue to collaborate closely with them on the establishment of their negotiating bodies.

In conjunction with the Department for Business and Trade, the Fair Work Agency, devolved governments and sector partners, we will continue to consider the responses to this consultation and confirm the approach to the sector in each nation in advance of the implementation of the first fair pay agreement in 2028 in England. The responses to the consultation and all organisations and individuals that have engaged the department directly on this issue have provided vital evidence that will inform a final position.

Informing the remit of the ASC Negotiating Body

Background and summary of responses

We use the term remit to refer to the matters the ASC Negotiating Body should negotiate. This section of the consultation sought views on prioritisation of different elements of pay and terms and conditions, as well as on other employment policies (such as training and development, policies on people and culture, and additional benefits and financial incentives) that could be part of the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit.

Respondents were asked to indicate their priorities from a selection of options, first around pay. Setting a pay floor was the most popular response, with 73% of respondents selecting it as a priority. In the open-text responses, many highlighted the benefits of improving pay generally including the potential to make ASC a more attractive career path and more competitive within local labour markets. A similar question on terms and conditions highlighted pay for the time and cost of travelling between visits as a priority for many, with just over half of respondents choosing this option. There were several other options under terms and conditions which also received a high level of support (these are detailed in part 3 of this document).

The consultation also included a set of questions on whether it would be beneficial to include policies on training, development and career progression, people and culture, or additional benefits and financial support within the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit.

In particular, there was support in the responses for specialised training to be included in the remit, along with other policies on training and qualifications. We also received a strong representation from members of the Alzheimer’s Society, calling for a focus on specialised dementia training. A majority of respondents who answered the question on people and culture indicated a preference for including policies around wellbeing, dignity at work, equality and diversity practices, health and safety, whistleblowing and family-friendly policies supporting the balance between work and personal life. On additional benefits and financial support, open-text responses were mixed; among those who opposed including the areas listed, many expressed a view that the ASC Negotiating Body should focus primarily on pay.

This question was subject to technical issues during data collection - some respondents were unable to select the ‘none of the above’ option and would have to select another option. Caution is needed when interpreting multi-select questions. Priorities stated within these multi-select questions should only be compared with the other responses from the same question. We cannot infer differences in popularity by comparing responses across questions.

Government position

Responses on priorities within pay and terms and conditions will form part of the development of a remit letter later this year. This will be used to trigger negotiations and may set out areas for the ASC Negotiating Body to consider. The initial focus for the ASC Negotiating Body is likely to be on pay and terms and conditions, where there is the strongest case for intervention and where early impact is most needed.

We recognise the depth of feeling expressed through the consultation on whether the ASC Negotiating Body should have scope to consider wider employment matters in addition to pay and terms and conditions. Responses highlighted both the importance of these issues for workforce wellbeing, retention and quality of care, and concerns about feasibility, funding and the need to maintain a clear focus, particularly for the first negotiation cycle.

Having considered these views, the government has decided that wider employment matters should form part of the ASC Negotiating Body’s statutory remit, to ensure the ASC Negotiating Body has sufficient flexibility to address the range of issues raised by respondents and to support longer‑term workforce sustainability. Regulations will enable the ASC Negotiating Body to consider wider employment matters, including:

• training, development and career progression
• people and culture policy
• additional benefits and financial incentives

This approach reflects the consultation feedback that issues such as training, progression, wellbeing and workplace culture are integral to improving recruitment, retention and care quality.

We recognise concerns about over‑extending the scope of early negotiations - including these matters within the remit does not predetermine that they will be addressed in every negotiation cycle. Instead, it allows the ASC Negotiating Body to take a proportionate, evidence‑led approach for each round of negotiations, informed by the Secretary of State’s remit letter and the available funding envelope.

Some issues raised through the consultation and our engagement programme, such as around concerns on organisational practices or matters more appropriately addressed through commissioning, regulation or existing employment law, fall outside the ASC Negotiating Body’s statutory remit and are not matters for the ASC Negotiating Body to determine.

Dispute resolution

Background and summary of responses

As part of the process, it is important to consider what happens if the ASC Negotiating Body fails to reach an agreement. The consultation sought views on a proposed approach to resolving disputes where the resolution process is triggered by the chair and referred to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) for support with independent resolution.

A majority of respondents supported the proposed process, and in open-text responses many expressed views that Acas is the most appropriate organisation to resolve disputes, citing its independence, experience and established role. However, some respondents suggested additional safeguards, including clearer escalation processes, defined criteria for referral, a focus on conciliation and greater transparency. Concerns were also raised about representation within the ASC Negotiating Body, the risk of dispute resolution resulting in agreements that are unaffordable or undeliverable, and the potential for outcomes to conflict with existing legal or regulatory requirements.

Government position

The proposed dispute resolution process is intended to support negotiating parties to reach agreement and does not override the principle of self-determination. In line with collective bargaining principles, members of the ASC Negotiating Body will determine the detailed dispute resolution processes, including any internal voting arrangements for referral to Acas, through their terms of reference.

Where differences arise during negotiations, the independent chair will first seek to facilitate discussions and support the negotiating parties to resolve points of contention. Where an impasse is reached and negotiations are unable to proceed, the independent chair will call upon Acas to support with resolution. This staged approach ensures there is a clear escalation process and that referral to Acas is used appropriately, rather than becoming a default step in the negotiation cycle. Involving Acas will help ensure the process is independent, proportionate and supported by relevant expertise, reflecting established practice in collective bargaining.

The government recognises the importance of ensuring that dispute resolution is used appropriately and transparently, and that outcomes are deliverable in practice. The Secretary of State will therefore consider the affordability and deliverability of any agreement before it is ratified, to ensure it works for the sector and those drawing on care.

Implementation

Background and summary of responses

This section of the consultation set out what happens once the ASC Negotiating Body has reached an agreement and explained what happens if an agreement is not reached. It also considered preparation for the implementation of a fair pay agreement and invited views on what we can do to support the sector to be ready.

Organisations, individual employers of personal assistants and individuals responding in a professional capacity who are not members of the health and care workforce were asked for views on what should be included in guidance and communications to support implementation of fair pay agreements.

Respondents emphasised that guidance should be clear, unambiguous and tailored to the wide range of stakeholders responsible for implementation, including local authorities and providers of different sizes and models. Some thought that it should be framed as requirements to reduce ambiguity, alongside ‘safe harbour’ assurances for employers who act in good faith. Responses emphasised the importance of explaining agreed measures in plain English clearly setting out the scope, interaction with existing legal and regulatory frameworks, with practical examples and realistic implementation timelines.

Many expressed a view that funding should be ring-fenced, and there should be clear guidance around this for commissioners (particularly local authorities) to ensure pass-through. Responses also emphasised the importance of transparency around funding arrangements and the alignment of the fair pay agreement with wider financial settlements, alongside detailed assessment of impacts and monitoring.

73% of relevant respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposal that DHSC and the ASC Negotiating Body co-author and publish guidance. 13% answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Open-text responses highlighted the benefits of having a single, authoritative source of guidance, including relevant expertise, avoiding confusion and demonstrating transparency and collaboration. A minority expressed concerns around government influence and whether co-authorship would be too time-consuming.

Government position

We will proceed with proposals for the government and the ASC Negotiating Body to co-produce and co-publish guidance, and relevant communications, to support implementation.

We will work with the ASC Negotiating Body, sector partners and other relevant organisations, such as the Department for Business and Trade, the Fair Work Agency and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS), to produce guidance and communications for a wide range of groups involved in implementing fair pay agreements. We will ensure that guidance provides appropriate support and direction to workers, employers and local authorities so they understand what an agreement means for them - including for detailed assessments of potential impacts, where necessary - and the action they must take to implement it.

We recognise that many respondents expressed clear views about the importance of ring-fenced funding. However, the £500 million funding envelope is part of a wider Local Government Finance Settlement and there are interactions with other pressures that are funded by local authorities. The grant funding is not ringfenced and local authorities will have discretion over how to spend this in the best way in line with the reformed and simplified funding arrangements. Our response to concerns about commissioning and the pass-through of funding is set out in the government position on compliance and enforcement.

Compliance and enforcement

Background and summary of responses

This section of the consultation set out how the fair pay agreement will be enforced and invited views on how we can support employers and commissioners of care to comply with the agreement.

Organisations, individual employers of personal assistants and individuals responding in a professional capacity who are not members of the health and social care workforce were asked about the guidance they needed to comply with an agreement, and views on how the department could help employers and commissioners to comply with an agreement.

Respondents emphasised the need for guidance and/or regulations to be communicated clearly and understandably, with clear distinction between requirements and recommendations to reduce administrative burdens, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). They also noted practical resources that would be helpful, and important issues that should be addressed in guidance, such as:

• which roles are in scope (including complex cases)
• legal obligations
• implementation timelines (with transition periods)
• audit and evidence requirements
• a safe harbour guarantee to protect employers attempting to implement in good faith

Regarding how the department can support employers and commissioners with compliance, many respondents raised concerns around funding - particularly pass-through from local authorities - and thought the guidance should specify how the fair pay agreement aligns with commissioning frameworks. Many of these respondents thought it was particularly important that DHSC hold commissioners to account for this, by ringfencing funds and establishing a clear commissioner-level enforcement process. Some respondents stressed that DHSC should engage thoroughly with a wide range of stakeholders, including employer representatives, commissioners and regulators and take a phased approach to implementation using transition periods to help employers and commissioners comply. Local authorities emphasised that they should be engaged throughout, and some suggested that additional funding or resources may be required to help them understand and implement the fair pay agreement and monitor compliance.

Finally, members of the adult social care workforce, adult social care provider organisations and individual employers of personal assistants were asked to share views or evidence about the current process for resolving disputes and complaints about contracts of employment, pay or working conditions.

Of the 133 responses to this question, many described negative experiences or perceptions of current dispute resolution processes. Some respondents highlighted that these issues can lead to protracted, unresolved disputes, which damage morale and retention.  However, some providers responded that their internal processes currently work successfully (with Acas as a backup for more difficult cases). Some respondents (particularly members of the workforce) called for more standardisation to make it easier for workers to raise issues, while some providers expressed a view their ability to resolve pay-related disputes is limited by insufficient funding from commissioners.

Government response

We will ensure that guidance is timely, designed for the diverse range of audiences throughout the sector, and includes practical resources to support understanding and compliance. We will continue to hold sessions where we listen to and learn from adult social care providers regarding what support they need to help them to comply, and what barriers that particularly hard to reach providers face. This will include understanding what good support and guidance looks like for small, medium and large providers. We will also explore routes by which we can most effectively share information with workers, employers, commissioners and other, including the use of easy read products. We will also review the experiences of existing dispute resolution processes shared by respondents, and consider how workers can be better informed about how to raise issues and employers are supported to resolve disputes and deliver change.

We will work with the Department for Business and Trade and the Fair Work Agency to ensure we have an effective plan for compliance and enforcement in place ahead of the introduction of the first fair pay agreement in 2028. We will promote compliance through engagement and guidance, so that different groups clearly understand their responsibilities, alongside an appropriate and proportionate enforcement regime to investigate any pay breaches and provide workers with routes to complain.

We recognise the concerns raised by respondents regarding local authority commissioning and the delivery of a fair pay agreement and wider employment rights changes being introduced under the Plan to Make Work Pay.

Ahead of the implementation of the first fair pay agreement in ASC, we intend to bring together sector partners to: build an improved picture of how local authorities and different markets are likely to respond to employment rights changes and workforce reforms, explore and promote the commissioning conditions that best support policy intent and market sustainability, and what those conditions might look like in different areas, and consider how good practice can be encouraged and adopted more widely to support the success of the fair pay agreement and Employment Rights Act, ahead of system-wide recommendations from the Casey Commission.  

We will then use the outputs of that engagement to work with sector partners to develop guidance and support for local authorities ahead of implementation of the fair pay agreement in 2028.

Equalities impact

Background and summary of responses

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, we used the consultation to ask respondents about the potential positive and negative impacts of the policy proposals on particular groups, including (but not limited to) groups of people who share protected characteristics.

Responses included views on anticipated positive effects for some groups, secondary benefits for other groups in terms of quality of care and outcomes, as well as possible negative effects for some people. Respondents to this section generally focused on the potential impacts of a fair pay agreement outcome.

Respondents highlighted that the proposals in the consultation could improve pay and conditions for a range of people, but particularly overrepresented sections of the workforce including women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and people with disabilities. Some respondents commented that these groups of people would also likely benefit from measures to improve fairness and equality.

Other groups that respondents thought would benefit from fair pay agreements included:

• younger workers, due to improved structured development opportunities
• international workers, due to tightening of exploitation regulations
• workers who live in rural areas, if paid travel provisions are agreed
• minority groups such as LGBTQ+ workers, if policies around diversity and inclusion are strengthened

Many respondents also emphasised potential secondary benefits for people who draw on care and support, particularly people with disabilities and older people, due to improved staff satisfaction, recruitment and retention, and therefore quality and continuity of care.

Potential negative effects highlighted included increased costs to self-funders and reductions in volume of care commissioned by local authorities and other commissioners, impacting both care staff and users.

Other groups that respondents thought might be negatively impacted included:

• people who are likely to be or become unpaid carers (particularly women) if increased costs reduce the supply and/or demand for paid care
• self-employed workers if a fair pay agreement led to a reduction in demand for their services
• staff who rely on flexible working arrangements (particularly women, disabled staff, staff who live rurally and those who perform unpaid care) if a fair pay agreement reduced opportunities for personalised working patterns

Government response

We expect the fair pay agreement to have a positive impact on equality - particularly gender and ethnicity - given the characteristics of the care workforce.

We have carefully considered the potential equalities impacts identified through the consultation in applying the Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED) when reaching the decisions above. We recognise the range of views expressed by respondents regarding both the potential positive and negative equalities impacts of the policy. We will ensure that equalities considerations are embedded throughout the development and implementation of the fair pay agreement, including through ongoing assessments of impacts on people who share protected characteristics.

We will continue to consider the findings of the consultation when taking decisions on the remit letter. Further to this we will also direct the ASC Negotiating Body to consider equalities impacts when reaching a decision. The findings from the consultation will inform equalities impact assessments of a final agreement.

Part 3: response breakdown

What follows is a detailed breakdown of the responses received for each section of the main consultation and the themes which emerged which have informed the government response outlined above.

The figures shared below are based on responses to the standard consultation, unless otherwise stated, while the themes reported for each question reflect the themes identified by both the standard and easy read consultation. In some cases, we have highlighted distinct themes that emerged from the easy read.

In total, 1,077 responses were received to the standard consultation, alongside additional off‑platform submissions, and 83 responses to the easy read version.

The ASC Negotiating Body

Form of the ASC Negotiating Body

Question

The consultation laid out a proposal to establish the ASC Negotiating Body as an advisory non-departmental public body (ANDPB), operating at arm’s length from DHSC. Organisations, individual employers of personal assistants and individuals responding in a professional capacity were asked:

If you have further comments on the proposed approach to establishing the ASC Negotiating Body, please include them here. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

We received 253 open-text responses. Many of the respondents expressed support for establishing the ASC Negotiating Body as an ANDPB, emphasising the importance of independence and fairness. Some particularly highlighted the importance of appointing an independent and impartial chair.

Respondents also emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability as guiding principles for the ASC Negotiating Body.

Suggestions for ensuring this included:

• transparent appointments with elections for key figures such as the independent chair
• robust governance and internal accountability processes within the ASC Negotiating Body
• published terms of reference, evidence standards, and reporting on decisions, timelines and the funding envelope

Responses raised concerns about representation (and equality of representation) of a range of groups within the ASC Negotiating Body and/or secretariat, including:

• front-line staff
• personal assistants
• individual employers of personal assistants
• trade unions
• the charity and private equity sectors
• small and medium-sized employers
• domiciliary care providers
• local authorities and/or the Local Government Association

Some respondents (particularly local authorities) emphasised the importance of local government involvement, to ensure that outcomes are aligned with commissioning processes. Similarly, many respondents emphasised the importance of any agreement being fully funded by government (with explicit advanced commitment to this) to avoid costs being passed down to employers.

Some responses, particularly from provider organisations, emphasised the importance of the ASC Negotiating Body being informed by sufficient evidence to understand the practical realities of care delivery.

The minority of respondents who expressed views in opposition to the proposal raised concerns that the ASC Negotiating Body would create unnecessary cost and bureaucracy.

Supporting the ASC Negotiating Body

Question

Respondents were presented with 2 options for how the secretariat function could be delivered:

• option 1: staffed by civil servants seconded into the ASC Negotiating Body (if it is established as a non-departmental public body, as proposed). If the ASC Negotiating Body is an expert committee, it will be staffed by civil servants within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)
• option 2: contracted out to an external delivery partner. This would involve a regular procurement exercise, where organisations could bid for the secretariat contract. The successful organisation would be accountable to the department through a contract management relationship. If we establish an advisory non-departmental public body, there will still need to be a small number of civil servants involved to oversee this operation

They were then asked:

Which option for delivering the secretariat function do you believe is best suited to the fair pay agreement process?

• option 1 - delivered by civil servants
• option 2 - delivered mainly by an external delivery partner
• neither option
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 865 responses to the closed portion of this question. There was no clear majority response with 36% of relevant respondents choosing option 1 and 33% choosing option 2. Just under a third were spread across the other responses, either choosing ‘neither option’, ‘don’t know’, or ‘prefer not to say’. There was a similar distribution of responses to the easy read consultation with no clear majority.

There were 510 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Respondents who supported option 1 cited reasons including:

• cost-effectiveness
• impartiality
• professionalism
• lack of trust in an external partner
• continuity through cycles
• minimising layers of bureaucracy between the sector and government

Respondents who supported option 2 cited reasons including: independence, expertise in adult social care and business management (depending on the external delivery partner chosen), accountability and a lack of trust in the impartiality of civil servants.

Some respondents emphasised the importance of any secretariat being informed by the lived experience of carers and people who receive care.

Representation: proposed membership of the ASC Negotiating Body

We asked 12 questions to all respondents about how representation should work for the ASC Negotiating Body.

Worker representation

Question

The consultation outlined a proposal for UNISON, GMB, Unite and the Royal College of Nursing, working with the Trades Union Congress as the convener, to form an adult social care fair pay agreements trade union group to represent workers in negotiations. All consultation respondents were asked: 

Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 completed responses to the closed part of this question. A clear majority (67%) agreed with our proposal for co-ordinating and selecting worker representatives, while 14% neither agreed nor disagreed, 14% disagreed, 3% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 2% preferred not to say. The breakdown of responses was similar in the easy read consultation with a clear majority (81%) agreeing to allow TUC to help manage who speaks up workers.

There were 542 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Many supported trade unions being involved, because they trusted them to champion workers’ interests and believed them to have the relevant skills, experience and understanding to do so. Many suggested the trade unions listed were the appropriate ones and supported the role of the TUC as convener.

However, many respondents also flagged that unionisation is low in the sector and thought there should be representation for unaffiliated staff. Some suggested that this should involve trade unions consulting more widely than their own members, whereas others thought responsibility should lie with DHSC to establish these mechanisms.

Some respondents suggested other organisations should be involved, such as the British Association of Social Workers, the Care Workers’ Charity, Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Skills for Care.

A minority of respondents expressed opposition to trade union involvement, citing concerns including: a perceived lack of understanding of business management, potential for unfair and/or unrealistic demands, belief that trade unions are ineffective or lack credibility in adult social care and the potential for strike action.

Employer representation

Question

The consultation outlined our proposal for employer representatives on the ASC Negotiating Body, including how representatives could be co-ordinated and selected. All consultation respondents were asked: 

Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 completed responses to the closed part of this question. A clear majority (68%) agreed with our proposal for co-ordinating and selecting employer representatives, with 19% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, 8% disagreeing, 3% choosing ‘Don’t know’ and 2% preferring not to say. The breakdown of responses was similar in the easy read consultation with a clear majority (81%) agreeing with our proposal on how employers should be included.

There were 426 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Many respondents who agreed with the proposal referenced the importance of employer representation in general and expressed support for CPA as convener.

Many organisations stressed the need for employer representation that reflects the sector’s diversity (including employer size, type, geography, commissioning and/or local authority roles, and service types). Some raised concerns about large or for-profit providers dominating without safeguards for SMEs. Others highlighted the need for a transparent employer consultation process and raised concerns about funding. Some individual respondents were concerned that employers would prioritise affordability and profit over fair pay for workers. Some flagged potential conflicts of interest if local government or the NHS were included as both employers and commissioners.

The role of local government

Question

The consultation proposed a package of measures to ensure local government has a strong role in the negotiation process.

All consultation respondents were asked:

Do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach for involving local government in the fair pay agreements process?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. If there are other ways you think that local government should be involved, please also state that here. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 completed responses to the closed part of this question. A clear majority (65%) agreed with our proposal for involving local government, 17% disagreed, 14% neither agreed or disagreed, 3% said ‘Don’t know’ and 1% preferred not to say. The majority of providers that responded were supportive of the proposal, while the majority of local authority respondents disagreed. The breakdown of responses was similar in the easy read consultation with a clear majority (78%) agreeing with how we said local councils should be included.

There were 462 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Many respondents who agreed expressed views that some level of local government involvement would be crucial, given the central role they play in commissioning and funding ASC services. Some also thought that local government would bring useful local knowledge to the process.

Some respondents felt that local government should have a stronger role, for reasons including:

• local government’s role in implementation
• their statutory duties
• the risk of a fair pay agreement creating financial pressures
• their oversight and knowledge of market sustainability

Suggestions for this role included:

• involvement in cost modelling
• continuous discussion at every stage
• full representation on the ASC Negotiating Body or representation without a vote

However, other respondents raised concerns that increased local government involvement might lead to affordability being prioritised over fair pay, could slow or block progress, undermine national consistency, or create funding and/or passthrough risks. Some trade unions and providers expressed opposition to local government having voting powers on the ASC Negotiating Body. There were also views from some respondents that other commissioners, such as the NHS and or ICBs, should also be represented in the process.

As well as many of the themes above, some respondents to the easy read version of this question expressed support for local government involvement on the basis that they would bring valuable knowledge and insight.

Other members 

Question

All consultation respondents were asked:

Do you think that there are any other organisations who should be members of the ASC Negotiating Body, in addition to the proposed worker and employer representatives?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

If you answered ‘Yes’, which other organisations should be members of the ASC Negotiating Body, and why? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 completed responses to the closed part of this question. 45% of respondents indicated ‘Yes’ that there were other organisations which should be members of the ASC Negotiating Body, 15% indicated ‘No’, 38% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 2% preferred not to say. 56% of respondents in the easy read consultation were also in favour of other organisations being part of the ASC Negotiating Body.

There were 436 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Suggestions included: organisations that represent people who draw on care and support, local authorities and or Local Government Association, NHS and or ICBs, Skills for Care, regulators like the Fair Work Agency or CQC, charities that represent care workers, organisations that represent regulated professionals, other government departments and representatives for specific type of providers.

Self-funders

Question

All consultation respondents were asked:

How should the interests of people who pay for their own care be considered as part of the negotiation process? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 625 responses to this open-text question.

Many respondents emphasised the importance of considering self-funders’ interests and views, on the basis that they form a large part of the market and would be directly impacted. Many respondents also emphasised that in any case, there must be clear, accessible and transparent communication to help self-funders understand the impact of any fair pay agreement.

Some respondents suggested existing organisations could represent self-funders, or that formal consultation mechanisms could be used to gather self-funders’ views. There was recognition that it may be difficult to engage self-funders directly, so suggested they should have the option to be represented by other people such as relatives or medical staff.

Some respondents suggested the interests of self-funders should be considered in published impact assessments and that the ASC Negotiating Body should be required to demonstrate how this evidence has been considered.

A minority expressed concerns about representation of self-funders’ interests, sharing views that everyone who receives care or support should be represented equally, and that self-funders would be motivated by affordability rather than fair pay for workers.

NHS commissioners

Question

All consultation respondents were asked:

How should the interests of NHS commissioners be considered as part of the negotiation process? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 488 responses to this open-text question.

Many respondents expressed support for NHS commissioners being involved in some capacity given their relevant expertise and because they will be impacted as funders of social care.

Responses also highlighted that they would bring a useful perspective in terms of aligning social care and NHS terms and conditions. Some respondents suggested their role should mirror that of local authorities to ensure equality.

Some respondents expressed opposition or scepticism to NHS involvement, disagreeing with the involvement of commissioners in general, or opposing on the basis of a general distrust in commissioners engaging in good faith. A popular suggestion was that NHS commissioners should contribute their views in a limited advisory and/or support capacity.

Appointments process

Question

All consultation respondents were asked:

Are there any specific criteria that you think the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should consider when appointing members to the ASC Negotiating Body?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. If you answered ‘Yes’, please also state the criteria you think should be considered. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

The closed part of this question has 1,077 completed responses. A majority of respondents (58%) indicated ‘Yes’, 7% indicated ‘No’, 31% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 4% preferred not to say.

There were 602 responses to the open-text portion of this question. The strongest theme conveyed was the importance of ASC Negotiating Body members having direct, hands‑on experience of working in adult social care, including frontline care experience and not solely leadership or management roles.

Respondents also emphasised the importance of representing the diversity of the sector, including diversity by geography, employer type and size, and type of care provided. Many highlighted the need for representation of people with lived experience of receiving care and/or their family members, and stressed that representative bodies should consult directly with those they represent.

Further themes included the importance of members’ expertise in areas such as adult social care funding and commissioning, collective bargaining, the NHS and AfC, employment law and labour economics. Respondents also consistently highlighted the need for independence and impartiality, and for members to uphold core social care values such as empathy, compassion and constructive engagement.

Negotiation cycle and process

How negotiations will start

Question

This section set out proposals for what should be included in a remit letter from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the ASC Negotiating Body to commence negotiations.

Respondents were asked:

Is there anything else that you think a letter from the Secretary of State should set out?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 328 responses to this open-text question.

Respondents suggested that in addition to government proposals, the remit letter should set out:

• details on funding levels and mechanisms, including how much funding will be available for each negotiation cycle, when it will be received, and if and/or how it will be ringfenced to ensure it is used for the intended purpose
• assurances on long-term sustainability of funding and measures to ensure costs are not passed to employers (which would create market stability risks)
• consideration of differential impacts across provider types (for example, SMEs, independent vs not-for-profit, rural providers)
• the specific role of local authorities and the NHS
• expectations around how the ASC Negotiating Body will procure and use evidence to support its decision‑making
• transparency and reporting requirements such as progress updates and governance arrangements
• clear longer‑term objectives, with an explicit ask for the ASC Negotiating Body to explore issues beyond pay, such as working hours, pensions, and equality and inclusion

Off-platform responses similarly emphasised the importance of including clear plans and assurances around funding. Additional suggestions included: benchmarking against other public sector pay awards, setting out the current pay landscape based on Skills for Care data, timelines, a list of evidence sources that will be considered, any principles, red lines or requirements that the ASC Negotiating Body should follow, and consequences and/or plans if an agreement can’t be reached.

Responses to the easy read version of this question highlighted similar themes. Some respondents suggested features of a fair pay agreement that they would like to see, such as support and funding for qualifications and (improved) overtime pay.

How negotiations will work

Question

The consultation outlined the proposed negotiation process.

Respondents were asked:

Do you agree or disagree with our proposal for how negotiations will work?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 completed responses, where 49% of relevant respondents agreed, 31% answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 9% disagreed, 8% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 3% preferred not to say, 92% of the respondents in the easy read agreed with our suggestion of how negotiations would work.

There were 289 responses to the open-text portion of this question.

Many respondents who supported the proposal emphasised the importance of a clear, pre-set structure, including agreed parameters, criteria and transparency throughout. Some also highlighted the importance of robust dispute resolution or backstop arrangements, in the case of non-agreement.

Respondents emphasised that any agreement would require a guarantee of adequate, ring-fenced funding. Without this, respondents warned of significant risks to businesses, staff and people drawing on care. Some noted that inadequate funding could shift negotiations towards affordability constraints (rather than the sector’s needs), with the risk that outcomes could legitimise persistent low pay rather than resolving it.

Many respondents suggested that evidence gathering should be a required part of the process, including detailed modelling of impacts on care users, staff, providers and local government. Some suggested this should include input or recommendations from local government.

Views on timelines were mixed. While some supported flexibility in the first negotiation cycle, a larger proportion of open-text respondents favoured fixed, pre-agreed timelines. Some stressed the need for a clear deadline for declaring non-agreement to protect providers’ ability to set budgets in advance and strongly opposed backdated agreements (particularly without retrospective funding), citing risks to provider cash flow and alignment with National Living Wage cycles. Many called for an implementation date of 1 April to align with other cycles.

There were also mixed views on the potential length of the proposed process - while some felt there was a risk it would be protracted and create uncertainty for staff, some organisations emphasised the need for adequate time for planning and implementation (with some suggesting a minimum of 6 months).

Off-platform responses suggested that there should be clear success criteria and measurable outcomes for the negotiations, as well as a clear plan in case agreement cannot be reached. Respondents also emphasised the importance of leaving enough time for impact assessment and implementation. Similar concerns around representation (particularly of local government) were raised as in the preceding questions.

How negotiations will conclude

Question

The consultation outlined the proposed decision-making process. Respondents were asked:

Do you agree or disagree with our proposal that each of the bargaining side manages their own voting system, with a requirement that each side simply informs the chair whether they can support a proposed settlement?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 865 responses to the closed part of this question, where 59% of relevant respondents agreed with our proposal, 22% answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 10% disagreed, 7% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 2% preferred not to say. The easy read version asked whether responders agree with our described way of deciding what to do. 74 people answered and 89% indicated agreement.

Respondents were asked to explain their position and provide any supportive evidence in an optional open-text question. There were 232 responses to this part of the question.

Respondents were generally supportive of the proposed approach, which they saw as simple, efficient and pragmatic. Some reflected that it is a well-established approach in collective bargaining, which respects the autonomy of different groups within the ASC Negotiating Body.

Many respondents emphasised the importance of this being an equitable and transparent process, and thought that independent oversight, safeguards and guidance (from Acas) would be needed to ensure this.

A minority raised concerns about possible government influence, whether it would be too complex and take too long, and whether the requirement for a yes or no decision would adequately reflect the potential variation of opinion within groups.

Off-platform responses reiterated concerns around representation, particularly of local government and non-unionised workers. Some also questioned the feasibility of the proposal in terms of coordinating and reaching consensus among diverse employers. Some thought additional resources needed to be allocated to support this process.

Timeline for negotiations

The consultation outlined proposed timelines for the negotiation process and sought views on the adequacy of these.

Question

Respondents were asked:

Do you think 6 months is enough time for an agreement to be reached in negotiations?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 488 responses to the closed part of this question. 51% of relevant respondents indicated ‘Yes’, 28% indicated ‘No’, 18% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 3% preferred not to say.

There were 237 responses to the open-text portion of this question.

Of the respondents who felt that 6 months would not be enough time to reach an agreement, the most commonly cited reason was the complexity of the ASC sector. There was particular concern that the wide diversity in provider types, sizes, locations and workforce conditions would make any agreements more difficult and significantly lengthen the negotiation process.

Many organisations also expressed a view that 6 months would not allow enough time for consultation with the sector and local authorities, particularly given the administrative burden this could place on employers, who would need to carefully consider and analyse any proposals, especially those related to funding.

Some respondents also expressed a view that, due to the complexity of the sector, the first fair pay agreement could require significantly longer for members to build relationships and familiarity with the negotiation process and to fully consider wider impacts and cost implications. Some respondents also raised that the scope of the negotiations and the level of funding agreed could make the process more difficult and therefore require longer than 6 months.

Some respondents felt that whether 6 months would be sufficient would depend on whether the process was well organised, structured and timed, often emphasising the need for flexibility on timelines and for the process to align with local authority fee‑setting cycles.

Among respondents who supported a capped 6‑month timeline, or felt that 6 months was too long, reasons included that a longer process could be distracting from the core values and objectives of the care sector and potentially damage workforce confidence in the ASC Negotiating Body and the wider process. These views were more common among ASC professionals than among organisations.​

Off-platform responses raised similar points. Some local authorities emphasised that more time would be needed to coordinate diverse and fragmented employers and consider impacts on local authorities. Local authorities also emphasised that timelines should be aligned with their existing cycles. Some respondents referenced other public sector bargaining processes (with mixed views on whether these suggest 6 months will be sufficient).

Question

Organisations, employers of personal assistants and professionals who were not members of the health and social care workforce were asked:

Do you think 6 months is enough time for the sector to prepare for implementation of the pay agreement?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting information on what would be needed to make this possible. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 488 responses to the first, closed, part of this question. There was no clear majority as to whether 6 months is enough time for the sector to prepare for implementation of the agreement. 42% of relevant respondents indicated ‘Yes’, 38% indicated ‘No’, 17% indicated ‘Don’t know’ and 3% preferred not to say.

Respondents were asked to explain their position and provide any supportive evidence in an optional open-text question. There were 276 responses to this question.

Many respondents emphasised that implementation timelines would be highly dependent on the level of funding agreed from central government. They frequently raised that implementing the pay agreement could take significantly longer if it had to be funded out of provider or local authority budgets, as cuts to other areas would need to be made and agreed in advance, which would take significantly longer than 6 months.

Among the organisations who felt that 6 months would not be long enough for the sector to prepare for implementation of the pay agreement, the most commonly cited reason was the need for organisational changes within care providers, such as payroll structures, fee negotiations, contracts and workforce planning, particularly for larger providers. They argued that these would require significantly longer for providers to fully implement and ensure compliance.

Respondents who disagreed also frequently stressed that providers and local authorities would need longer to plan their budgets in advance and align with fee‑setting cycles and commissioning uplifts, particularly if the fair pay agreement was to be implemented midway through the financial year.

Of the respondents who felt that 6 months was a sufficient amount of time, they often stressed this would be conditional on clear timelines, guidance and funding. Some respondents also raised the pressing need to improve pay and conditions, and noted that providers and local authorities will have been aware the fair pay agreement was coming since the 2024 election.

Off-platform responses similarly suggested that whether 6 months was feasible would depend on what was negotiated, whether clear guidance is provided, and how the agreement is funded. Local authorities stressed that if the fair pay agreement isn’t fully funded, they will be required to cut other jobs and/or services, which would delay implementation and mean 6 months would not be feasible. Local authorities also emphasised that implementation should be aligned with fee setting processes.

Coverage and remit

This section of the consultation sought views on different areas of pay, terms and conditions and wider employment policies. It also seeks views on what the ASC Negotiating Body should cover - for example, what type of job roles, services and settings.

Roles not in scope

Question

Organisations and individual employers of personal assistants were asked:

Are there any roles, either in your organisation or that you employ, that you are concerned do not fit within the definition of an adult social care worker to be within coverage of the ASC Negotiating Body?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

If you answered ‘Yes’, please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 456 responses to the closed part of this question. 34% of respondents answered ‘Yes’, 51% answered ‘no’, 11% answered ‘don’t know’ and 4% preferred not to say.

There were 147 responses to the open-text portion of this question, which was only shown to those who answered yes to the closed question. Respondents most commonly raised concerns around whether the following roles would be included: 

• ancillary roles (for example, HR, finance, training leads, activities staff, cooks, administrators, housekeepers, maintenance)
• staff who work across health and care (for example, in reablement or end-of-life care, community support, workers embedded in NHS discharge teams)

Some respondents suggested groups they thought should be out of scope, including: anyone working in unregulated care provision, senior positions (for example, directors), local authority and/or NHS-employed staff.

Off-platform responses were broadly similar. Some local authorities were concerned about creating a pay gap between adult and children’s social workers if local authority employed workers are in scope.

Support for understanding if workers are covered by the ASC Negotiating Body

Question

Organisations and individual employers of personal assistants were asked:

How can DHSC support you or your organisation to determine whether your workers are to be within coverage of the ASC Negotiating Body? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 219 responses to this open-text question. Respondents emphasised the importance of clear guidance and definitions to help them determine whether their workers are within scope, to ensure that any agreement is applied consistently. Some said that practical tools such as checklists, visualisations, frameworks and worked examples would be helpful, particularly for uncertain or ambiguous cases (for example, where workers have mixed roles or work across multiple sectors). Some also requested a bespoke advisory service and/or targeted communications, training and webinars.

Excluded sections of the workforce

Question

All respondents were asked:

Are there any settings, services or roles that you think should be excluded from the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

If you answered ‘Yes’, please explain who should not be in coverage and why. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 responses to the closed part of this question. 21% of respondents answered ‘Yes’, 53% answered ‘no’, 23% answered ‘don’t know’ and 3% preferred not to say.

There were 204 responses to the open-text portion of this question, which was only shown to those who answered ‘Yes’ to the closed question.

Many respondents expressed a view that individuals already covered under another collective bargaining process, such as social workers, occupational therapists or nurses, should not be covered under a fair pay agreement. Some suggested that the fair pay agreement should exclusively focus on direct care roles, meaning that ancillary workers or senior management roles should be excluded.

Some suggested that agency workers should not be included because they already receive higher pay and the fair pay agreement should reduce reliance on agency workers.

Additional settings, services or roles to be included

Question

Respondents were asked:

Are there any other settings, services or roles that you think should be included within the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage that have not been mentioned?

• yes
• no
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

If you answered ‘Yes’, please explain who should be in coverage and why. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 responses to the closed part of this question. 19% of respondents answered ‘Yes’, 39% answered ‘no’, 28% answered ‘don’t know’ and 4% preferred not to say.

There were 191 responses to the open-text portion of this question, which was only shown to those who answered ‘Yes’ to the closed question.

Many respondents expressed a view that the fair pay agreement should cover everyone who works in ASC across all settings and roles. Some expressed views that staff in support roles are sometimes not considered in conversations around pay. Some suggested that the focus should be on those with the lowest pay, regardless of role or setting. Many highlighted the importance of including personal assistants and some mentioned the risks around creating a 2-tiered workforce if they were to be excluded.

Care delivered by the self-employed or under informal arrangements

Question

Respondents were asked:

Please share any thoughts on whether the ASC Negotiating Body could affect those that are self-employed or working under informal arrangements. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

Among the 377 who answered this open-text question, many expressed a view that workers who are self-employed or working under informal arrangements should be included on the grounds of fairness, inclusivity and equality.  Many raised the risk of creating a 2-tiered system by not including these workers, where providers may potentially change their operating models, resulting in job cuts or employers moving to informal models to avoid complying with the outcomes of a fair pay agreement.

Some respondents suggested that these workers should not be in scope because they already have control over their own rates, generally earn more than permanently employed workers and are unregulated.

Some trade unions expressed a view that self-employed workers should be included, but if not, DHSC or the Fair Work Agency should strengthen enforcement to crack down on exploitative bogus self-employment arrangements that may increase as companies and individuals try to circumvent the fair pay agreement. 

Care sector workers employed by local authorities and the NHS

Question

Respondents were asked:

Do you agree or disagree that workers covered by the National Joint Council (for adult social care workers employed by local government) should be in the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Do you agree or disagree that workers covered by the Agenda for Change contract (for adult social care workers employed by the NHS) should be in the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were mixed views around the inclusion of workers covered by the NJC. The closed part of this question has 1,077 completed responses with 49% of respondents supporting their inclusion, 19% indicated ‘neither agree or disagree’, 18% disagreeing, 11% indicating ‘Don’t know’ and 3% preferring not to say. Overall, responses did not indicate a clear majority view. In the easy read, 73% indicated agreement when asked if local council workers should be included.

There were 346 responses to the open‑text portion of this question. Respondents who agreed with inclusion most commonly cited the need for parity across the adult social care sector, including to level the playing field and avoid a 2‑tier workforce.

Respondents who disagreed with inclusion most frequently cited that workers covered by the NJC are already subject to established national bargaining arrangements, and that inclusion within the ASC Negotiating Body would be unnecessary, duplicative and complex. Many raised concerns about undermining the collective bargaining power of the NJC, potential unintended consequences for independent providers given differences in funding, pay and pension structures, and legal risks such as equal pay claims. Several respondents also highlighted that NJC workers generally have higher pay and more favourable terms and conditions than much of the independent adult social care workforce and therefore should be less of a focus for the ASC Negotiating Body.

In off-platform responses, many local authorities opposed inclusion on similar grounds. While trade unions supported eventual coverage for all workers, they suggested that NJC‑covered staff should be excluded from the initial years of the ASC Negotiating Body to avoid undermining existing arrangements and because they were unlikely to benefit in the short term.

Similarly, there were mixed views regarding the inclusion of workers already covered by AfC being within the ASC Negotiating Body’s coverage. There were 1,077 completed responses to the closed part of this question, with 45% of respondents supporting their inclusion, 19% indicating ‘neither agree not disagree’, 18% indicating ‘disagree’, 15% indicating ‘don’t know’ and 3% preferring not to say. Overall, responses did not indicate a clear majority view. In the easy read, 67% indicated agreement when asked if NHS workers should be included.

There were 279 responses to the open‑text portion of this question. Respondents who agreed with inclusion the most cited a desire to create parity across health and social care, and avoid the risk of a 2‑tier workforce, with some suggesting closer alignment with or unification of bargaining arrangements.

Respondents who disagreed with inclusion most frequently argued that workers covered by AfC are already subject to a nationally negotiated framework, and that inclusion within the ASC Negotiating Body would be unnecessary, duplicative and complex, with potential legal and equal pay risks. Many also highlighted that AfC workers generally have higher pay and more favourable terms and conditions than much of the adult social care workforce and questioned whether inclusion would be realistic or affordable given the significantly lower funding available to the sector. Several suggested that the ASC Negotiating Body should initially focus on independent providers, with the question of AfC coverage revisited in future if funding levels change.

Across responses, many emphasised the importance of increasing alignment between health and social care pay and terms and conditions (for example by using AfC as a benchmark), even where views differed on formal inclusion. In off-platform responses, local authorities generally opposed inclusion on the grounds that it could undermine AfC and add unnecessary complexity, while trade unions supported legislative coverage for all social care workers but suggested flexibility on timing.

Cross-border workers

In England, Scotland and Wales there are some care workers who operate across borders, for example providing care to people in both England and Wales. The consultation sought views on how cross border working might be impacted by the introduction of a fair pay agreement in England.

Question - adult social care providers

Adult social care provider organisations were asked:

Do you currently manage a service across the borders between England and Wales or England and Scotland?

• yes
• no

If you answered ‘Yes’, how do you currently manage the differences between the current adult social care systems? For example, different pay and training requirements. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

In principle, would having to comply with different legal requirements for pay and terms and conditions in different countries cause you to reconsider your operations and where you provide care?

• yes
• no

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of response

There were 264 completed responses to the closed portions of these questions. When asked whether they manage a service across the borders, 13% of respondents answered ‘Yes’ and 87% of respondents answered ‘No’. On the second question about having to comply with different legal requirements for pay and terms and conditions in different countries, 28% of respondents answered ‘Yes’, 39% answered ‘No’ and 33% answered ‘don’t know’.

There were 25 responses to the first open-text question, about how providers currently manage differences.

There were 64 responses to the second open-text question on whether having to comply with different legal requirements would cause providers to reconsider their operations.

The main themes were:

• that needing to comply with different legal requirements would create increased administrative burden and/or cost (this view was shared by those who said they would reconsider their operations and those who said they wouldn’t). Respondents noted that the level of cost and/or difficulty would depend on the scale of any differences
• particular concerns about impacts on small and medium-sized employers, due to increased complexity and cost
• calls for the fair pay agreement to create more consistency between nations rather than more differences (or at least for coordination between nations during the process to prevent adverse effects). Some respondents expressed a view that there would ideally be one fair pay agreement covering the whole of Great Britain
• concerns about potential adverse effects, including workers migrating for better pay and/or conditions, creating shortages and instability in other areas (particularly near borders)
• concerns about insufficient funding and differences between jurisdictions creating unfunded pressures for providers

Some providers stated that cross-border differences already impacted their decisions about where to operate.

Others said they already manage cross-border differences successfully so would not reconsider their operations because of this.

In off-platform responses, respondents expressed similar concerns about administrative burden and potential recruitment and retention challenges.

Question - adult social care workforce

Members of the adult social care workforce were asked:

If pay and terms and conditions were different between England, Wales and Scotland, would this have any effect on your choice of job, or where you work, or where you live?

• yes
• no

If you answered ‘Yes’, please explain your how this might affect you and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of response

This closed question has 367 completed responses with 43% of respondents answering ‘Yes’, 42% answering ‘No’ and 15% answering ‘don’t know’. Overall, responses did not indicate a clear majority view.

There were 59 responses to the open-text portion of this question.

Many respondents who answered ‘Yes’ reiterated that they would be willing to either move job or relocate entirely for better pay and terms and conditions, or that they thought others would. For some respondents, this was tempered by other considerations, including differences in local cost of living and quality of life, ties to their current area or rurality (with associated travel costs).

Some respondents expressed views that current pay levels are unfair and inadequate. Some highlighted that disparities already exist and already cause people to move, with some calling for equal pay across Great Britain to improve fairness. 

Question - Adult social care providers and workforce

The following questions were put to adult social care providers and members of the adult social care workforce.

Which would you prefer when there is the potential for a worker to be covered by more than one fair pay agreement?

• a worker follows the fair pay agreement pay and terms and conditions for the number of hours worked in that nation
• a worker follows the one fair pay agreement where they spend the majority of their time working, receiving the same pay and terms and conditions for all the hours worked
• a worker follows the one fair pay agreement for where they are resident, receiving the same pay and terms and conditions for all the hours worked
• other
• don’t know

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 629 responses to the closed question that asked the respondents to choose between the options above. The responses were split across the 3 options with no clear majority. 33% of relevant responders supported option 1, while 23% favoured option 2 and 21% option 3. The remaining 23% selected ‘don’t know’ or ‘other’.

There were 104 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Some respondents expressed a view that ideally there would be one fair pay agreement to create equal pay across the Great Britain. Some felt that none of the proposed options would be workable, because they would result in different rates of pay for workers doing the same job, and create an unmanageable administrative burden for employers.

Respondents who supported option 1 (based on hours worked in each nation) cited reasons including: fairness and consistency, clarity and minimal administrative burden for employers (compared to other options), compatibility with commissioning and/or funding structures, enforceability and legal robustness.

Respondents who supported option 2 (based on where the worker spends the majority of time) cited reasons including: fairness and consistency, clarity and predictability for workers, clarity and minimal administrative burden for employers (compared to other options, particularly option 1).

Respondents who supported option 3 (based on worker’s residency) cited reasons including: simplicity and clarity for workers and employers - the principle that each worker should fall under one agreement.

Respondents highlighted that increased administrative burden would likely result in increased errors and would disproportionately impact smaller employers.

Some respondents raised concerns about a disproportionate impact on back-office staff (such as management, HR and finance), who routinely carry out work related to multiple nations. Respondents pointed out that in these cases it would be challenging to record hours worked ‘for’ a particular nation, which could pose an issue for option 1 or 2.

Off-platform responses raised similar points. Trade unions generally supported option 1, on the basis that it is the clearest and minimises the risk of employers gaming the system to disadvantage workers. Views from local authorities were mixed, but responses raised consistent concerns about the potential administrative burden of all the options.

Priorities for areas of pay

Question

Respondents were asked to select up to 3 priorities from a list of options. The options are not replicated here for brevity but can be seen in the full fair pay agreement process in adult social care document.

Out of the following areas of pay, which do you think should be a priority for the Secretary of State’s first remit letter to the ASC Negotiating Body? (select up to 3)

Please explain your position and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 responses to the closed part of this question. Setting a pay floor was the most popular response, with 73% of respondents selecting it as a priority, followed by setting pay bands (52% of respondents), introducing qualification or skills-linked pay (48% of respondents) and then pay supplements (44% of respondents). In the easy read, the most popular response was skills-linked pay (63% of respondents), giving people bonuses (59% of respondents) and then setting pay bands (52% of respondents).

There were 390 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Many respondents highlighted potential benefits in terms of recruitment and retention, frequently linked to introducing a pay floor and pay bands and/or levels for progression. Many noted that these measures could make ASC a more attractive career path and more competitive within local labour markets. Many organisations, particularly employers, stressed that changes should be fully funded and reflected in local authority fees. Some suggested that the £500 million funding envelope would be insufficient, and the government should ‘keep it simple’ for the first fair pay agreement to avoid being overly ambitious. Some respondents highlighted potential adverse effects, such as a higher pay floor reducing incentives to progress and employers’ ability to respond to local market variation.

Responses to the easy read version of this question highlighted similar themes and emphasised the importance of increasing pay in general, so that staff are compensated fairly for their work and skills.

Priorities for terms and conditions

Question

Adult social care providers and members of the adult social care workforce were asked to select up to 3 priorities from a list of options. In an attempt to remain concise, the options are not replicated here but can be seen in the full fair pay agreement process in adult social care document.

Out of the following terms and conditions, which do you think should be a priority for the Secretary of State to consider as part of their remit letter to the ASC Negotiating Body? (select up to 3)

Please explain your answer and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 responses to this question. 52% of respondents selected pay for time and costs of travelling between visits as a priority. This was followed by a close cluster of priorities: 34% selected hours of working week including guaranteed hours and zero hours contracts, 33% selected pay for sleep-in or night shifts, 29% selected enhanced sick pay or sick leave, 27% selected paid holiday or annual leave, 24% selected overtime pay and 23% selected pension contributions and conditions. In the easy read, the most popular response was being paid for travel time (51% of respondents), being paid for working more hours (50% of respondents) and better sick pay (48% of respondents).  

There were 349 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Many respondents expressed a view that the first fair pay agreement cycle should focus primarily on pay, noting concerns that extending to terms and conditions could dilute or overcomplicate negotiations. Funding concerns were again raised, including the insufficiency of the funding envelope and that minimum standards (for example, pay for travel time) are currently not being met due to poor practice and a lack of funding. Respondents noted that these terms and conditions could improve recruitment and retention, and wellbeing and health for staff, which would improve quality of care.

Training, development and career progression

Question

Respondents were asked to select up to 3 priorities from a list of options. In an attempt to remain concise, the options are not replicated here but can be seen in the full fair pay agreement process in adult social care document.

Which, if any, of the following areas within training, development and career progression do you think should be included within the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit? (Optional)

Please explain your answer and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 responses to this closed question. 65% of respondents selected specialised training and 63% selected training entitlements. This was followed by a close cluster of priorities: 48% selected policies to support career progression, 46% selected policies to support development opportunities and 43% selected policies to support specific qualifications. In the easy read, the most popular responses were having a chance to get training and advice to help people get qualifications (60% of respondents each).

There were 330 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Respondents who agreed with including some or all of these areas generally emphasised the benefits of training, including for professionalisation, career progression, staff confidence and competence, retention and care quality. These respondents consistently emphasised that the impact of any training measures would depend on sufficient funding, with some noting that training time is not always currently paid.

Others raised concerns that including these areas could dilute the focus of negotiations, particularly in the first cycle, and argued that the sector is too diverse for blanket requirements to be effective. Some considered further policy intervention unnecessary given existing CQC training requirements, preferring guidance or best practice instead.

Off‑platform responses generally reflected similar views, agreeing that training, development and progression are important areas, while stressing the importance of funding and flexibility, and cautioning against mission creep within a limited funding envelope.

People and culture policies

Question

Respondents were asked to select up to 3 priorities from a list of options. In an attempt to remain concise, the options are not replicated here but can be seen in the full fair pay agreement process in adult social care document.

Which, if any, of the following areas within people and culture policy do you think should be included within the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit? (Optional)

Please explain your answer and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 responses to the closed part of this question. 58% of total respondents selected wellbeing policies, while 56% of total respondents selected both dignity at work, and equality, diversity and inclusion policies, followed by 54% of respondents selecting health and safety in the workplace policies.

In the easy read, the most popular responses were rules to help people balance their work with family life (67% of respondents), rules to help people be happy and healthy at work (59% of respondents) followed by rules to stop people from being treated badly at work, like rules to stop bullying (54%).

There were 296 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Many respondents expressed concerns about including people and culture policies within the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit. A common view was that these areas are already covered by existing employment law, regulation and oversight mechanisms, and that any issues relate more to enforcement than gaps in policy scope. Many respondents felt these matters are better addressed and enforced at a local level and were concerned that their inclusion could dilute the ASC Negotiating Body’s primary focus on pay or create additional financial and administrative burdens for providers.

A smaller group of open-text respondents expressed support for including some or all of these measures, emphasising their importance in supporting a safe, inclusive and attractive working environment. In particular, respondents highlighted whistleblowing and speak‑up arrangements, protection from bullying, harassment, discrimination and violence at work, and the need to promote equality - especially for women, workers with caring responsibilities, workers from minority ethnic backgrounds and migrant workers. In off-platform responses, some Trade unions supported inclusion of these policies on the basis that the ASC Negotiating Body should have a broad remit and flexibility to determine its own priorities.

Additional benefits and financial support

Question

Respondents were asked to select up to 3 priorities from a list of options. In an attempt to remain concise, the options are not replicated here but can be seen in the full fair pay agreement process in adult social care document.

Which, if any, of the following areas within additional benefits and financial support do you think should be included within the ASC Negotiating Body’s remit? (Optional)

Please explain your answer and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 1,077 respondents to the closed part of this question. 52% of total respondents selected travel and expenses, for example, subsistence allowance and reimbursement of travel costs, 50% of total respondents selected other incentives such as staff counselling and wellbeing schemes, and 48% of respondents selected travel to work schemes such as travel season ticket loans, discount for transport, and free parking schemes.

In the easy read, the most popular responses were paying people back for the money they spent while they work (67% of respondents), extra support to support happiness (61% of respondents) and then plans to help to pay for travel to work (59% of respondents).

There were 270 responses to the open-text portion of this question. Responses were mixed. Some respondents felt that the ASC Negotiating Body should focus primarily on pay, particularly in the first cycle, and were concerned that including additional benefits could over‑complicate negotiations within a limited funding envelope, with some citing the £500 million funding envelope and the risk of unfunded or administratively burdensome pressures on employers.

Others supported including some or all measures, particularly travel‑to‑work support, highlighting unpaid travel time and costs faced by care workers, especially in domiciliary care, as well as the potential value of covering expenses such as parking or uniforms and improving wellbeing support.

Across off-platform responses, many noted that blanket national policies may be difficult to implement given the diversity of the sector, emphasising that any measures would need to be fully funded and that the ASC Negotiating Body should retain flexibility.

Additional areas of consideration

Question

Respondents were asked:

If there are any additional areas that the ASC Negotiating Body should consider or have in its remit, please outline them here. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 202 responses to this open-text question.

Some respondents, particularly providers, suggested that the ASC Negotiating Body should have a formal remit to consider the real cost of care alongside fair pay, including wider costs such as pensions, training, supervision, overheads, and the additional pressures faced by rural providers, to support sustainable funding through ‘fair fees’. Others repeated views expressed elsewhere that the remit should be kept simple, with an initial focus on pay to maximise the impact of the £500 million funding envelope.

Additional suggestions included addressing working environments, staff wellbeing, training, qualifications, supervision and safety regulation.

Off‑platform responses echoed these themes, with some emphasising that the fair pay agreement should focus on core pay at least initially due to time and budget constraints, while others suggested further areas for consideration, such as discipline and grievance policies and sponsorship requirements for migrant workers.

Dispute resolution

The consultation sought views on a proposed approach to resolving disputes where disputes are triggered by the chair and referred to Acas for independent resolution.

Question

Organisations and individuals responding in a professional capacity who are not members of the health and social care workforce were asked:

Do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to dispute resolution, where disputes are triggered by the chair and referred to Acas for independent resolution? (Optional)

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your answer and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

We received 452 responses to the closed part of this question, 58% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposed approach, 15% answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and 15% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

There were 156 responses to the open-text portion of this question.

Respondents who agreed with the proposed approach generally expressed views that Acas are the most appropriate organisation to resolve disputes, because they are well-established, experienced and independent.

Some respondents suggested additional safeguards to strengthen the proposed approach, including:

• a clear escalation process to avoid Acas referral becoming a default part of the cycle, rather than a last resort
• Acas should initially focus on conciliation or facilitating consensus, rather than immediate arbitration
• clear criteria for triggering a referral, to avoid subjective interpretation by the chair
• requirement for transparency throughout the process, including publishing written outputs such as learning points to inform future cycles

Concerns about the proposed approach (roughly in order of frequency) included:

• lack of local government and service user representation (particularly self-funders) in the ASC Negotiating Body, and implications of this for dispute resolution
• risk of dispute resolution leading to a binding agreement that isn’t affordable or deliverable for employers (due to a lack of funding). Second-order impacts on staff and people who draw on care if this leads to service withdrawal and/or job cuts
• risk of agreement conflicting with legal or CQC requirements for local government or employers

In off-platform responses, some respondents raised concerns about a lack of local government representation in the overall process and an increased overall risk of industrial action. Trade unions expressed support for the proposal.

Implementation

This section set out what happens once the ASC Negotiating Body has reached an agreement and sought views on what we can do to support the sector to be ready.

Question

Organisations, individual employers of personal assistants and individuals responding in a professional capacity who are not members of the health and care workforce were asked:

What do you think should be included in guidance and communications to support you to implement fair pay agreements? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 225 responses to this open-text question. Respondents emphasised the importance of guidance being clear, unambiguous and reflective of the diversity of stakeholder groups that will be involved in implementing a fair pay agreement (for example, local authorities, providers of different types and sizes). Respondents thought it was important for there to be tailored guidance for these different stakeholders. Some thought it should be framed as requirements, rather than guidance, to minimise ambiguity. Some providers also thought there should be ‘safe harbour’ assurances to protect employers attempting to implement the guidance in good faith.

Suggestions of key points to cover included:

• what has been agreed, including any specific measures around pay and terms and conditions, in plain English and avoiding legal jargon
• clarity around scope, and how the fair pay agreement interacts with existing employment law or statutory provisions, commissioning contracts and CQC expectations
• practical guidance for implementation, including specifics - for example, how to calculate backpay if relevant, how to structure pay for staff with variable hours or in mixed roles
• clear, realistic timelines

Respondents suggested practical tools that would help them understand guidance and implement a fair pay agreement, including:

• worked examples
• FAQs
• a dedicated helpline
• templates and toolkits
• training and webinars

Many expressed a view that funding should be ring-fenced, and there should be clear guidance around this for commissioners (particularly local authorities) to ensure pass-through. Many also expressed a view that more than £500 million funding envelope would be required; some thought this envelope should be allocated directly to pay, with additional funding from DHSC for any implementation costs.

Respondents suggested that communications should be cobranded by DHSC and partners such as Skills for Care. Some also emphasised the importance of clear communications to workers to help them understand their entitlements.

Off-platform responses raised similar points. Some emphasised that the guidance should clearly set out funding arrangements and how the fair pay agreement aligns with finance settlements, as well as a detailed assessment of impacts and plans to monitor them. Some trade unions emphasised that guidance should make it clear that the fair pay agreement is legally binding.

Question

The same groups of respondents were then asked:

Do you agree or disagree that DHSC and the ASC Negotiating Body should co-author and publish guidance? (Optional)

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know
• prefer not to say

Please explain your answer and provide any supporting evidence. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 469 responses to the closed portion of this question. 73% relevant respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposed approach. 13% answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

There were 157 responses to the open-text portion of this question.

Reasons for supporting the proposal included:

• agreement that it’s important for there to be one source of guidance to avoid confusion or contradiction
• support for government involvement to confer necessary legal and political authority
• a view that the ASC Negotiating Body will bring necessary operational expertise to advise on practical steps and give real-world examples
• that it will demonstrate transparency and collaboration, help to build trust, avoid bias and mean there is shared accountability for the quality of guidance

Respondents flagged further considerations including:

• that authorship needs to be equitable, with all sides (for example, employers, trade unions) having equal opportunity to contribute
• that guidance shouldn’t just be focused on providers - commissioners, personal assistants and individual employers need clear guidance, too
• that guidance needs to be accessible and easy to read
• that the focus should be on enabling compliance rather than punishment

Some respondents made suggestions for what the guidance should include, including:

• explicit clarity around funding and how costs will be passed through the commissioning process
• clear timelines
• worked financial examples
• templates for communicating changes to staff

Concerns and risks that were highlighted:

• time-consuming to produce
• negotiation and compromise mean guidance isn’t clear
• could create confusion about the independence of the ASC Negotiating Body from DHSC

Compliance and enforcement

This section set out how the fair pay agreement will be enforced and sought views on how we can support employers and commissioners of care with being compliant with the agreement.

Question

Organisations, individual employers of personal assistants and individuals responding in a professional capacity who are not members of the health and social care workforce were asked:

What do you need guidance on to help you or your organisation to comply with a fair pay agreement? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 248 responses to this open-text question.

Respondents emphasised the need for guidance and/or regulations to be communicated clearly and understandably, with a sufficient level of detail covering the who, what, where, when and why. Some stressed the need for a clear distinction between legal requirements (which should be unambiguous) and recommendations (if included), to avoid any interpretation being required. Some thought this was particularly important for SMEs who may experience a larger administrative burden relative to capacity.

Specific aspects of guidance that respondents suggested included:

• clarity on which roles are in scope and guidance for mixed or ambiguous cases
• legal guidance
• clear, sufficient implementation timelines with a transition period
• audit and evidence requirements, with clarity around how and when compliance will be assessed
• enforcement, dispute and appeal processes
• commissioner obligations
• a safe harbour guarantee to protect employers attempting to implement in good faith

Many respondents also requested practical tools to help them understand and implement guidance, such as a dedicated helpline, training, webinars, templates, worked examples, checklists and FAQs. Some suggested that there should be a separate accessible, easy read version.

Many respondents (particularly providers) raised concerns around funding - particularly pass-through from local authorities - and thought the guidance should specify how the fair pay agreement aligns with commissioning frameworks.

Off-platform responses raised similar points, particularly around clarity on funding, employer obligations, scope (in terms of roles) and timelines.

Question

Organisations, individual employers of personal assistants and individuals responding in a professional capacity who are not members of the health and social care workforce were asked:

Please share any other views or comments about how the department can support employers and commissioners of care to comply with a fair pay agreement. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 191 responses to this open-text question.

Many respondents raised concerns around funding, emphasising that DHSC should ensure sufficient funding is allocated and passed through to employers for implementation. Many of these respondents thought it was particularly important that DHSC hold commissioners to account for this, by ringfencing funds and establishing a clear commissioner-level enforcement process. Some expressed a view (also seen in other questions) that funding should reflect the true cost of care, including fair pay but also wider costs faced by employers.

Many referenced the importance of clear communication and guidance, with similar suggestions to the previous question, including training, webinars and a dedicated helpline or communication channel.

Some respondents stressed that DHSC should engage thoroughly with a wide range of stakeholders, including employer representatives, commissioners and regulators. Some suggested that DHSC should take a joint approach to enforcement, working closely with CQC and Skills for Care.

Some respondents thought the government should take a phased approach to implementation, using transition periods to help employers and commissioners comply (with significant advanced notice).

Off-platform responses similarly emphasised that compliance will depend on clear communication, legal guidance, full funding and alignment with commissioning processes. Local authorities emphasised that they should be engaged throughout, and some suggested that additional funding or resources may be required to help them understand and implement the fair pay agreement and monitor compliance.

Question

Members of the ASC workforce, ASC provider organisations and individual employers of personal assistants were asked:

Please share any views or evidence from your perspective about the current processes for resolving disputes and complaints about contracts, pay or working conditions. If there are any changes that you think should be made to these processes, please include them in your response. (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

There were 133 responses to this open-text question.

Many respondents described negative experiences or perceptions of current dispute resolution processes. Issues included:

• a perception that current processes are unnecessarily slow, complex, fragmented and inconsistent
• some providers (particularly SMEs) having limited internal human resources (HR) capacity
• low unionisation meaning many staff have limited access to information and support
• reports from some members of the workforce that issues are often not taken forward after being flagged to managers
• the employment tribunals process being overstretched

Some respondents highlighted that these issues can lead to protracted, unresolved disputes, which damage morale and retention.

However, some providers responded that their internal processes currently work successfully (with Acas as a backup for more difficult cases). Some of these thought that a new process was therefore unnecessary.

Respondents who mentioned Acas generally expressed positive sentiments and thought there wasn’t a need for a sector-specific alternative. A minority thought that Acas was currently under-resourced.

Some respondents (particularly members of the workforce) called for more standardisation to make it easier for workers to raise issues, as well as clearer guidance and resources to support both workers and employers.

Some providers also expressed a view that their ability to resolve pay-related disputes is limited by insufficient funding from commissioners.

In off-platform responses, some trade unions highlighted issues with the current system and suggested that it needs to be significantly strengthened given widespread non-compliance in the sector. Respondents suggested additional resources would be required to make sure the Fair Work Agency can operate effectively in this capacity and be more proactive, particularly to protect vulnerable groups such as domiciliary workers, migrant workers, personal assistants and agency staff.

Equalities impact

Question

To remain concise, the questions in this section have been combined here but can be seen in the full fair pay agreement process in adult social care document.

All respondents were asked the following questions:

Are there any groups of people, such as (but not limited to) those with protected characteristics, who you believe would be positively or negatively impacted by the proposals in this consultation?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

If you answered ‘Yes’, please select the characteristics of the groups that you think will be positively or negatively impacted by the proposals. (Optional)

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation
• other group, please specify

If you answered ‘Yes’, why do you think these groups will be positively or negatively impacted? (Optional, maximum 250 words)

Overview of responses

Respondents were asked if there were any groups of people who they believed would be positively impacted by the proposals in the consultation. There were 1,077 responses to the closed part of this question. 38% of respondents indicated ‘Yes’, 24% of respondents indicated ‘No’ and the remaining 38% of respondents indicated ‘Don’t know’.

Respondents were subsequently asked to select the characteristics of the groups that the responders thought to be positively impacted. The most commonly selected characteristic was age (26%), followed by race (23%), disability (23%), sex (22%), pregnancy and maternity (17%), religion or belief (12%), gender reassignment (11%), sexual orientation (11%) and marriage and civil partnerships (11%). 3% of respondents identified other characteristics which they believed would be positively impacted by the proposals.

There were 178 responses to the open-text portion of the question. Respondents described potential positive effects for a range of groups. The most common theme was that the proposals could improve pay and conditions for groups of staff who share protected characteristics and are overrepresented in the adult social care workforce (compared to the general population), including women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and people with disabilities. Some respondents also pointed out that these groups are more likely to experience inequality within the workforce, so would also benefit from measures to improve fairness and equality.

Other staff groups that respondents thought would benefit included:

• younger workers, because they would benefit from more structured development opportunities, and are more likely to be on lower pay
• international or migrant workers, who are currently face exploitation at higher rates in terms of pay and conditions
• workers who live in rural areas and are therefore currently more likely to do unpaid travel
• parents, if parental rights and entitlements are improved or better protected, and because increased pay would improve general financial security
• minority groups such as LGBTQ+ workers who might benefit from strengthened policies around diversity and inclusion

Many respondents also emphasised potential secondary benefits for people who draw on care and support, particularly people with disabilities and older people (who are more likely to draw on ASC services) through improved staff satisfaction, improved recruitment, retention of workers, and quality and continuity of care.

Some respondents emphasised that benefits were conditional on the fair pay agreement being fully funded and some called for equalities impacts to be monitored and published.

Off-platform responses raised similar points, particularly around benefits for women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds (both through improved pay and conditions for those working in ASC, and the possibility of reduced reliance on unpaid care if the fair pay agreement boosts the supply of formal care).

Respondents were also asked if there were any groups of people who they believed would be negatively impacted by the proposals in the consultation. There were 1,077 responses to this question. 40% of responders indicated ‘No’, 15% of responders indicated ‘Yes’ and 45% indicated ‘Don’t know’.

Respondents were subsequently asked to select the characteristics of the groups that the responders thought to be negatively impacted. The most commonly selected characteristic was age (9%), followed by disability (8%), sex (5%), race (4%), pregnancy and maternity (2%), religion or belief (2%), gender reassignment (2%), marriage and civil partnership (2%), and sexual orientation (2%). 3% of respondents identified other characteristics which they believed would be negatively impacted by the proposals.

There were 112 responses to the open-text portion of this question.

The most common concerns related to adverse effects that could arise if the fair pay agreement is not fully funded by central government, or if commissioners do not pass this funding down to employers. Potential negative impacts included:

• employers passing on increased costs to self-funders, who are disproportionately older and more likely to have disabilities. Some respondents also expressed a view that many self-funders already struggle to meet the costs of care and are therefore financially vulnerable
• local authorities and other commissioners reducing the volume of care they commission, with potential negative impacts for staff (if workforces are reduced or this results in provider failure) and people who draw on care and support
• reduction in the availability of care in rural areas, if rural providers go out of business due to travel time costs
• insecurity for people who work for small or charitable providers more heavily impacted by unfunded pressures

Respondents were also concerned about impacts on people who receive direct payments and are individual employers of personal assistants (who are also more likely to be disabled and/or elderly), particularly if higher wage requirements are not reflected in budget allocations. These people could also be impacted by a reduction in market choice if the fair pay agreement incentivised personal assistants to move into other areas of the sector or leave altogether.

Other groups that respondents thought might be negatively impacted included:

• groups who are disproportionately likely to be or become unpaid carers, particularly women, if increased costs reduced supply and/or demand for paid care
• senior staff if a higher pay floor reduced differentials - some respondents thought this could also lead to retention difficulties, with knock-on effects for care users
• self-employed or agency workers if a fair pay agreement led to a reduction in demand for their services
• staff with unpaid care responsibilities, or other staff who find it harder to access and complete training, if the fair pay agreement introduced training or qualification-linked pay
• staff who currently rely on flexible working arrangements (particularly women, disabled staff, staff who live rurally and those who perform unpaid care), if a fair pay agreement reduced opportunities for personalised working patterns
• staff who currently receive benefits, whose entitlements may change

Some organisations were concerned about a potential risk in equal pay claims if local authority staff were in scope.

Some respondents emphasised the importance of developing and publishing an equality impact assessment (EQIA) to understand and mitigate these impacts.

Off-platform responses raised similar concerns, particularly around equal pay risks, costs for self-funders, risks of provider failure, and the importance of EQIA and monitoring. Respondents emphasised the need for the fair pay agreement to be fully funded to mitigate these risks.

Annex: methodology and demographic data

Analysis methodology

The consultation included 94 questions. The consultation asked closed questions with multiple choice options. It also had free text responses, where respondents could express their views up to a maximum of 250 words.

Quantitative analysis was conducted for all closed questions. The total number of responses vary across questions. Some questions in the online survey were asked to everyone, and others were only asked to certain respondents depending on the capacity through which they were responding to the survey. was based on the relevance of each question to each audience and keeping the consultation to a manageable length. Where a question was not asked to all respondents, this has been highlighted. The full survey (including routing instructions) can be viewed on the consultation page.

Percentages are calculated using the number of respondents to each question as the base. Percentages have been rounded for reporting and therefore may not always add up to 100. The consultation also had questions that allowed multiple selections and the percentages across options reflect the number of times an option was selected as a proportion of the total number of respondents (how popular the option is).Where appropriate, ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Agree’ responses have been combined into ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Disagree’ responses have been combined into ‘Disagree’.

We conducted detailed thematic analysis of responses to open-text questions to draw out important themes and ideas from each question. While qualitative analysis is not intended to show exactly how many people held a certain view, we have endeavoured to provide an indication of the weight of opinion in responses, using words such as ‘many’, ‘some’ or ‘several’.

Off-platform responses were analysed separately to identify relevant information for each question. This information has been summarised alongside the on-platform analysis.

The easy read consultation included 61 questions. The questions covered the same issues but some questions were worded differently to improve accessibility. Questions about managing a service across borders were not asked in the easy read survey. The full survey can be viewed on this publication. Responses to the easy read consultation were also analysed separately, in the same way as the on-platform responses. The themes and ideas expressed in response to the easy read versions of the open-text questions were generally similar to those expressed in the standard consultation. Where new themes emerged, they have been highlighted in the earlier sections of the response.

Demographic data

Percentages presented in this document are to be understood as a proportion of respondents to that question unless otherwise specified.

The breakdown of self-reported responses to the ‘about you’ questions in the main consultation were:

• all 1,077 respondents were asked to report the capacity with which they were responding to the survey. 39% reported responding on behalf of an organisation, 38% reported as responding as individuals sharing their professional views, 20% reported they were responding as individuals sharing their personal views and experiences, and 3% reported they were responding as individual employers of one or more personal assistants
• 650 individual respondents reported their ethnic group. 87% of relevant respondents reported their ethnic group as White, 6% reported their ethnic group as Black, Black British, Caribbean, African or any other Black background, 2% reported their ethnic group as Asian or Asian British, and 2% reported their ethnic group as mixed or multiple ethnic groups or ‘other’. The remaining 3% preferred not to say
• 654 individual respondents reported their age. 27% of relevant respondents reported that they were aged 55 to 64, 22% reported that they were aged 45 to 54, 19% reported that they were aged 35 to 44, with 19% reporting that they were aged 65 or older and 11% reporting that they were aged under 35. The remaining 2% of respondents preferred not to say
• 647 individual respondents reported their sex. 70% of relevant respondents reported their sex as female and 27% reported their sex as male. The remaining 3% of respondents preferred not to say
• 656 individual respondents reported where they lived in the UK. 97% of relevant respondents reported living in England, with 2% reporting living in Wales or Scotland. The remaining 1% of respondents reported living outside of the UK or preferred not to say
• 367 respondents who were current members of the adult social care workforce selected a description that best suits their current role. 27% of relevant respondents reported their role as registered manager, 20% reported being in other care-related managerial roles, 10% reported being a care worker or assistant care worker, 7% reported being a social worker, and 7% reported being a team leader or supervisor in a care-related role. The remaining 28% reported being in other types of roles
• 363 respondents who were current members of the adult social care workforce reported their contracted number of hours of work. 75% of relevant respondents reported they are contracted to work 36 or more hours a week, 16% reported being contacted to work between 21 and 35 hours a week, and 4% reported being contracted to work between 11 to 20 hours a week. The remaining 5% of respondents reported 0 hours of contracted work, no guaranteed hours, that they were not sure or preferred not to say
• 367 respondents who were current members of the adult social care workforce reported which services they currently work in. 25% of relevant respondents reported working in supported living services, 20% in care home services without nursing, 16% in homecare services (domiciliary care), 12% in care home services with nursing, 5% in day care services, 4% in support and outreach services. The remaining 18% of respondents reported working in other care settings
• 423 organisation respondents selected a description that best suits their organisation type. 62% of relevant respondents reported responding on behalf of an adult social care provider, 18% on behalf of a local authority, 7% on behalf of a representative body for adult social care workers or providers, 5% on behalf of a charity, 1% on behalf of a Trade Union and 1% on behalf of an NHS trust. The remaining 5% chose the ‘other’ description

The breakdown of self-reported responses to the ‘about you’ questions in the easy read consultation were:

• all 83 respondents were asked to tell us why they were filling in the survey. 83% of relevant respondents told us they were answering because of their job and 11% answering as someone who wants to share their views. The remaining 6% have a personal assistant who works for them
• 81 respondents reported their ethnic group. 73% of relevant respondents reported their ethnic group as White, 9% reported their ethnic group as Asian or British Asian, 9% reported their ethnic group as Black, Black British, Caribbean or African and 4% reported their ethnic group as mixed or more than one ethnic group. The remaining 6% preferred not to say
• 82 respondents reported their age. 21% of relevant respondents reported that they were aged 25 to 34, 21% reported that they were aged 55 to 64, 20% reported that they were aged 45 to 54, 16% reported that they were aged 35 to 44, 9% reported that they were aged under 25 and 9% reported that they were aged 65 or older. The remaining 6% preferred not to say
• 82 respondents reported where they lived in the UK. 94% of relevant respondents reported living in England, with 4% reported living in Scotland or Wales. The remaining 2% preferred not to say
• 82 respondents reported whether they were a man or a woman. 63% of relevant respondents reported that they are a woman and 32% reported that they are a man. The remaining 5% preferred not to say
• 64 respondents reported the number of hours a week they work in adult social care. 59% of relevant respondents reported working 36 or more hours a week, 31% reported working between 21 and 35 hours a week, and 8% reported working 20 hours or less a week. The remaining 2% of respondents preferred not to say

Note that due to the smaller number of responses in the easy read survey, this section provides fewer demographic breakdowns than was given for the main consultation. Caution is also advised when interpreting percentages which often relate to a very small number of responses.