An Introduction to the Fair Pay Agreement with DHSC

Q&A Session

At the end of the meeting, we held a question-and-answer session. To protect personal information, the questions and answers have been summarised below.

Q1: Noting that the financial envelope captures public-sector-funded care but not self-funded care. Is there any conception in the current proposals of linking the financial envelope to pension increases, consumer inflation, or other mechanisms to capture the ability for self-funders to pay for staff pay increases?

A1: The consultation discusses the potential impact on self-funders and asks for views on how this could be mitigated. It also highlights the complexity of getting representation for self-funders on the negotiating body. The DHSC is keen to hear views on how funding should be considered for individual employers and the representation point.

–

Q2: In defining the financial envelope, you indicated one component is driven by local authority capacity. Is there any other consideration that might be driven by consumer spending e.g. linking increases to pension increases or other indicators of ability to pay?

A2: A remit letter will go to the negotiating body at the start of negotiations, setting out elements they need to consider. That remit letter could include such factors. The consultation asks what content should be in the remit letter, and this is a good place to raise these points.

–

Q3: Given the workforce pressures, recruitment challenges, and low pay in social care, is 2028 too long to wait for this to come into effect? Is there more the Department of Health and Social Care can do now to influence government decisions to address the urgent pressures before 2028?

A3: These concerns have been raised elsewhere. The department is currently working on:

The care workforce pathway (professionalisation and progression)

The learning and development support scheme

The Casey Commission (with initial recommendations expected)

There may be opportunities before 2028 for steps to improve things, though it is acknowledged 2028 feels far away.

–

Q4: Isn’t all of this still too little, too late? Reports and pathways won’t solve an underfunded sector, which ultimately needs adequate resourcing.

A4: The DHSC expect this feedback in the consultation. Immediate sector issues and what can be done now are important messages, and the Casey Commission will also hear them. Engagement with these processes is important.

–

Q5: The £500 million currently allocated to suport this equates to aound 20p per hour for care workers. We wrote to the Chancellor seeking £1 per hour for the sector and were told it would cost £2 billion and wouldn’t happen. Given existing work on care worker frameworks and achieving parity with other care professionals, will this be reviewed? Also, recognising current care professionals is important – without that recognition, experienced staff may be lost. Should this be included in cost of care exercises?

A5: On the £0.20 per hour point:

The negotiating body will decide how to allocate funds and may target specific roles or wage ranges.

The 2028 agreement is intended as a first step, leading to future improvements.

An impact assessment has been published with modelling of available money and expected impact.

–

Q6: Could you outline how the scope of workers included in the proposals is defined, particularly given issues such as parity with NHS workers and varying types of roles in social care?

A6: The Employment Rights Bill has a very broad definition (anyone mainly/wholly in adult social care). The negotiation process could narrow or contain this scope, but intention is to keep it broad so as not to constrain future agreements. A remit letter for each negotiation could specify which parts of the workforce should be addressed, and the consultation includes questions on whether NHS or local authority workers should be included and invites views on specific roles that may not fit cleanly into classifications.

–

Q7: Regarding the proposed role of trade unions, with low union membership in the independent sector, will employers be required to recognise or engage with unions even if their workforce has few or no members? How will trade unions on the negotiating body represent non-members, given that most care workers are not in a union?

A7: Unionisation is currently low; proposals consider how to increase it, including ensuring access for recruitment. The consultation proposes that the Trade Union Congress coordinates representation with partner unions (Unison, GMB, Unite, Royal College of Nursing). Access may bring new unions into the sector. Non-union members must still be engaged, and agreements will apply to all workers within scope, not only union members – the consultation seeks views on these concerns.

–

Q8: If significant changes to sick pay are made – such as entitlement to full pay for six months – this would greatly impact the sector, especially in domiciliary care where staffing runs very lean. How will this be handled?

A8: Sick pay changes referenced are part of the Employment Rights Bill, which applies across sectors – not specifically the fair pay agreements. In future, the negotiating body could look at sick pay rights within adult social care, but the immediate issue relates to the Employment Rights Bill.