Universal credit is set to rise – but it needs to be based on the amount we actually need to get by

A total £98 per week for a single person aged over 25. That is what the basic rate of universal credit will increase to in April 2026. 

You would be forgiven for thinking this amount must be based on an assessment of what a person needs to get by in the UK today. That would be the logical foundation for our social security system. But you would be wrong. 

Our social security system – for most people, universal credit – is a vital public service and one of the founding pillars of the modern welfare state. Many of us will use universal credit at some point. If we lose our job or become unwell it should cover our living costs while we get back on our feet. If we are trapped in low-paid or insecure work, it should be there to top-up our income. But, right now, it is failing to adequately protect people.

Read more:

• Is the cost of living crisis over and will prices in the UK ever come down?
• Disability and poor health drives number of young people not in work or education to almost a million
• DWP to save billions by tackling fraud and error in the benefits system. But at what cost?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation regularly tracks the impact of the cost of living crisis on low-income families. Our most recent survey found five in six families on universal credit had gone without essentials in the first half of this year. That means going without basics like food, heating and toiletries.  

This may seem a shockingly high figure to some. But we have seen a decade of cuts and freezes to our social security system, followed by a pandemic that saw the incomes of the worst off hit the hardest, and a cost of living crisis that has sent the cost of essentials like energy and food sky-high. So perhaps it’s not so much of a shock. 

To fulfil its purpose, our benefits system should provide people with enough to at least cover life’s essentials, such as food, household bills, cleaning products and toiletries. To do this, there needs to be an assessment of how much a basic basket of essential goods and services actually costs.  

Yet this has never been a part of calculating the amount of support people receive. This seems extraordinary given how important the system is for protecting all of us in hard times.  

Over the years we have seen the standard allowance – the basic rate of universal credit – sometimes be frozen, sometimes rise more slowly than prices and sometimes rise in line with prices. This time around, the government will be making a welcome above-inflation increase to the standard allowance, having accepted that its low rate is driving hardship and destitution.  

But this has all been done from an arbitrary starting point. We have never seen the basic rate of universal credit be set according to what families actually need in real life.  

JRF and Trussell did these calculations, using a basket of essential items like food and bills, and found that Universal Credit falls far short. Even with the increase coming in April 2026, a single person on universal credit will be £1,000 per year short of what we estimate is needed. 

This is why we are calling on the government to establish an independent process to take evidence from a range of sources – including people who rely on universal credit – to assess what is needed to cover life’s essentials and recommend what the rate should be.  

Then we will have a basis on which we can start to move towards a system that protects people from hardship by ensuring they can at least afford life’s essentials when they fall on hard times. 

 Katie Schmuecker is principal policy adviser at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

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

Reader-funded since 1991 – Big Issue brings you trustworthy journalism that drives real change.

Every day, our journalists dig deeper, speaking up for those society overlooks.

Could you help us keep doing this vital work? Support our journalism from £5 a month.