Politicians decide how much universal credit is worth, not the cost of living. We can change it

Universal credit is meant to prevent people from falling into hardship. But for millions of people, it doesn’t. 

When 75% of people turning to food banks are receiving universal credit, we know something isn’t right. Food banks in the Trussell community are seeing parents skip meals to feed their children and people choosing between using electricity or putting food on the table.

I think we can all agree that this isn’t the kind of Britain we want to live in – where people are facing such severe hardship they’re forced to the doors of food banks.

Our social security system should be there for all of us when we need it – but right now, it’s not covering the cost of essentials we all need to get by, like food, bills and toiletries – and it’s pushing people to food banks.

The amount universal credit payments are fixed at has never been set against any real costs. No independent evidence. Just a political decision – and nobody is properly or regularly checking it against the cost of essentials.

Parliamentarians from across party lines have come together on something we can all agree on: that no one in the UK should be having to turn to a food bank to get by.  

That’s why on 29th June, I was proud to announce I’d be chairing the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Ending the Need for Food Banks’ new inquiry, which asks a crucial question: how is the level of universal credit decided?

Today’s rates are simply the result of years of successive updates to those implemented in the 1940s – 80 years ago. That’s not to mention the multiple social security cuts we’ve seen since then.

This cross-party inquiry will look at the impact this has on people’s lives and their ability to stay in work or recover from ill-health. It will also look at whether independent advice would improve the system and, if so, what that might look like.

At the moment, we are facing a relentless false narrative about a so-called ‘ballooning welfare’ budget. So, it’s not the easiest time to launch this inquiry politically, but it makes it all the more important.  The more so because social security is so important to achieving the aims of the government’s child poverty strategy.

We want to hear from anyone with views or experience of the system – that might be because you’ve received universal credit yourself or you work for a charity, community group, think tank or trade union.  How could the system be improved?

Read more:

• Here’s what Andy Burnham can do right away to address homelessness and NEETs crisis
• Rising childcare costs during summer holidays leave working parents paying £1,145 per child
• ‘Universal credit claimants are working to support their families. But the system is not’

Together, we have an opportunity to help shape a social security system that protects people from hardship, rather than pushing them towards it. 

By contributing to this inquiry, you can help build the case for change – towards a future where everyone has enough to live on, and where food banks are no longer needed.

To find out how to submit evidence, visit www.trussell.org.uk/inquiry. 

Baroness Ruth Lister is emeritus professor of social policy at Loughborough University and a Labour peer

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Change a vendor’s life.

Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – and always take the magazine. It’s how vendors earn with dignity and move forward.

You can also support online:
Subscribe to the magazine or support our work with a monthly gift. Your support helps vendors earn, learn and thrive while strengthening our frontline services.

Thank you for standing with Big Issue vendors.