National living wage to increase in 2026 - here's why some think it should be even higher
The national living wage should increase by as much as 65p next year to help people with the rising cost of living, a government body has recommended.
The Low Pay Commission said the amount - an obligatory minimum wage payable to workers aged 21 and over - should be bumped to an average of £12.71 per hour, rising from the £12.21 per hour set in April. Depending on economic condition, it could reach as high as £12.86.
As the body works to recommend a wage that keeps up with the ever-increasing cost of living, some organisations want to see the hourly wage increase higher to make sure it isn't outstripped by skyrocketing prices and rising rents.
Here's what's going on with the rates at the moment, and what that means for you.
What is the national living wage set at currently?
As the table below shows, the national living wage is set at different rates according to a person's age and employment status.
Apprentices under the age of 18 are paid just £7.55 while they are in training, according to this year's rate.
The national minimum wage (for 18-20-year-olds) is set at £10, rising to £12.21 for those aged 21 and over.
With this in mind, the Low Pay Commission also consults employers, trade unions and workers on narrowing the gap between the national living wage and the minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds.
Usdaw, a union representing retail and distribution workers, said it "welcomes the Government's commitment to removing discriminatory age bands."
"This is an issue Usdaw has campaigned on for a number of years and the updated remit will help to put an end to rip-off youth rates to deliver a single national minimum wage for all adults," the union's general secretary Joanne Thomas told Yahoo News.
Should the national living wage be higher?
One of the jobs of the Low Pay Commission is to suggest a wage that factors in economic and political factors - and not just the cost of living.
While the Labour government has said boosting wages is a priority, Keir Starmer and the cabinet have reiterated their modest spending proposals while they fight a growing deficit and improve the UK's economic outlook.
Introducing a minimum wage protects vulnerable workers from being exploited, but economists generally caution against setting a minimum wage too high because economic models predict that doing so could lead to higher unemployment.
If a firm does not believe paying someone a certain wage is proportionate to the role, they may not make any additional recruits, or make redundancies.
Nonetheless, some organisations think that - all things considered - the national living wage should be set a lot higher.
Usdaw, which represents hundreds of thousands of workers who are paid an hourly rate, thinks a £15 per hour minimum is representative, no matter what age the worker is.
This is because many low-paid workers among Usdaw's membership currently earn wages that do not reflect their contribution or provide a decent standard of living.
The union's general secretary told Yahoo News: "We continue to engage with the Low Pay Commission to recommend as high an increase as possible with a goal of moving towards a rate of £15 for all workers.
'We very much welcome the steps being taken so far by government to tackle low pay and deliver a genuine living wage for working people.
"Usdaw has consistently campaigned for significant increases in the national minimum wage, and it is great to see the progress already made on this issue under a Labour government."
What is the real living wage?
The Low Pay Commission's recommendation of a national living wage of £12.71 per hour next year would outpace the current "real" living wage" outside of London.
But how does the real living wage differ from the one set by the government?
While the national living wage and the national minimum wage are legally binding, the real living wage is a voluntary pay rate set by the Living Wage Foundation, independently calculated based on what it says is the actual cost of living.
Whereas the Low Pay Commission weighs up the cost of living alongside political and economic interests, the real living wage takes into account factors like universal uptake, the average cost of a food shop, council tax, housing costs and childcare costs.
It is currently set at £12.60 outside of London, and £13.85 in London.
A total of 16,000 employers paying the real living wage are currently accredited by the Living Wage Foundation, like Sunderland City Council and the National Theatre.
In an area where child poverty is significantly higher than the national average — standing at 39.1% — the Leader of Sunderland City Council, Councillor Michael Mordey, said "becoming an accredited real Living Wage employer is simply the right thing to do".
The council, which has paid the wage for the last 11 years to its staff, also encourages contractors to pay the real living wage to its hires.
Others like sports and leisure business Levy UK cited the moral and economic case for introducing the wage to help employees during inflation and cost-of-living pressures. They also mentioned the cash boost improving staff morale, motivation, and retention.
However, not every sign-up has been a roaring success.
While several employers introduced the higher wage in response to the cost-of-living crisis, a number of employers have also cited it as a reason to end it.
Outsourcing company Capita announced in 2024 it would no longer be paying the wage "following its second significant annual increase" of 10%, which raised the recommended rate outside of London from £10.90 to £12 per hour.
The move sparked protests at the company's Lancashire office, with CWU regional secretary Carl Webb calling the decision "an absolute disgrace".
Beer giants BrewDog also sparked backlash when it withdrew from the scheme in the same year, with the company justifying it as a necessary step to return to profitability following a £24 million operating loss in 2023, despite a revenue increase to £321 million.
The company has been dealing with some financial setbacks, shutting ten sites including in Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield and York in July, citing "rising costs, increased regulation, and economic pressures".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mexico sets minimum export prices for fresh tomatoes
By Brendan O'Boyle MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Mexico has set minimum export prices for fresh tomatoes to protect its domestic production and ensure internal supply after a bilateral agreement with the U.S. expired, Mexico's economy and agriculture ministries said in a joint statement on Sunday. The decision follows Washington's withdrawal in July from a 2019 deal between the two countries which regulated Mexican tomato exports to the U.S.. The Trump administration on July 14 announced a duty of about 17% on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. While the new pricing rules apply exclusively to definitive exports, they don't restrict export volumes or impose maximum prices. Prices will be reviewed annually or sooner if market conditions demand, the Mexican ministries said. Minimum export prices per kilogram are set at $1.70 for cherry and grape tomatoes, $0.88 for Roma tomatoes, $0.95 for round tomatoes, and $1.65 for round tomatoes with stems. Other varieties, such as cocktail and heirloom tomatoes, will also have a minimum price of $1.70. According to official figures, Mexico exported $3.3 billion of tomatoes last year. "This action reinforces the government's commitment to agricultural competitiveness, dignified rural employment, and food sovereignty," the ministries said. The ministries added that Mexican associations of tomato producers have expressed support for the agreement, which entered into force immediately after its publication on August 8 in the government's official gazette.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Slot seeks Liverpool balance for Premier League defence
Liverpool boss Arne Slot said his side are conceding too often if they are to defend the Premier League title after losing the Community Shield on penalties to Crystal Palace on Sunday. The new-look Reds, after a £260 million ($350 million) spending spree in the transfer market, looked slick in attack at Wembley with new signings Hugo Ekitike and Jeremie Frimpong on target. However, the Reds twice failed to hold onto the lead as Palace levelled through Jean-Philippe Mateta's penalty and Ismaila Sarr's strike 13 minutes from time as the match ended 2-2 before the shootout. Last season Liverpool beat Palace 1-0 at Selhurst Park and drew 1-1 on the final day of the season at Anfield as they romped to the title with four games to spare. Slot saw flashes of what his star-studded forward line are capable of as the most expensive of his new recruits, Florian Wirtz, teed up Ekitike for the opening goal after just four minutes. However, in keeping with the pattern of Liverpool's pre-season friendlies, they were cut open with ease on the counter-attack. AC Milan beat Slot's men 4-2 in Hong Kong, while Liverpool edged out Athletic Bilbao 3-2 in one of two friendlies against the Basques on their return to Anfield on Monday. "If you look at our attacking play against a team that is so compact, that might be a bit better than last season," said Slot. "We only could score one goal against Palace (last season). Now we scored two and created more against them. "But, on the other hand, we conceded two goals, which we did against Bilbao, and we conceded a couple more against Milan, so that is something we need to do better." Only Arsenal had a better defensive record than Liverpool in the Premier League last season and Slot is keen to rectify his side's issues before they begin their title defence at home to Bournemouth on Friday. "We are able to create more but we are conceding at the moment more as well. If you want to compete to win the league, you cannot concede these chances. "We conceded too much today to win the game." Liverpool's spending in the transfer market may not be over as they continue to be linked with a move for Newcastle striker Alexander Isak. However, Slot dismissed the claim that the transfer spending will put his players under more pressure this season. "Because we are Liverpool the pressure is always on," he said. "That is nothing to do with brining players in." kca/gj
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Whatever You Think About Tony Blair, He Is Right About Digital ID
There was a very interesting discussion on BBC Radio 4 last week, part of the excellent 'Briefing Room' series hosted by David Aaronovitch, on the subject of national identity cards. While the subject of a national identity scheme for the UK has been bubbling for years, the topic of illegal migration has reignited the debate. However, the debate itself needs to change: It should no longer be about whether people should be made to carry a card or not! We are now in an age of digital identity and that provides an entirely different model that can advance both security and privacy in the modern age. National Digital ID? The debate is timely, which is why I agree with former British Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair on one thing at least: We have to do something about identity, despite the failure of the previous attempt at a national identity scheme introduced in 2007 under *checks notes* Sir Tony Blair. Sir Tony wrote recently that 'our present system isn't working,' which true, and that it is 'this is a time for shaking up' which is also true. And despite what the media insist on calling 'Electronic Identity Cards' or similar, he is right to ignore the old tropes about identity cards and say that 'digital ID is a good place to start." Sir Tony is right. It really is time to have sensible national discussion about digital identity and stop the simplistic black-and-white tropes about identity cards. Blair and the former British Foreign Secretary, William Hague (now Baron Hague of Richmond), issued a report a while back calling for a digital identity infrastructure in the UK. In a report, the former Labour leader and former Conservative leader argued that government records "are still based in a different era'. What their report actually called for was not for a 'digital ID card', as was widely reported in the press along with hysterical nonsense about how having an identity card leads to tyranny (as in France, presumably?), but for a "secure, privacy-preserving digital identity for citizens" that allows them to interact more efficiently and effectively with government services. Media commentators have started to talk about the efficiencies that might accrue through the deployment of a digital ID, while continuously confusing authorisation with identification, while expressing concerns about government's disastrous track record with major IT projects and expressing perfectly reasonable concerns about the security of systems that might function as honeypots: while at the same time noting that Ukraine, which is under continuous cyberattacks, has managed to deploy a working national digital ID in less time that it takes will take us Brits to get round to even discussing how such a scheme might work. These are serious issues, but they are issue that can be managed and can managed more effectively now, using tried and tested technology from the crypto world as well a tried and tested technology from defence, finance and other sectors. There is no need for a honeypot. In the UK we now have a framework in place and the government has said it will support economic growth through the creation of trusted digital identity products and services from certified providers. The necessary Data (Use and Access) Act received Royal Assent in June. When the legislation is 'commenced' (as they say here), the government will have new powers and responsibilities which will include maintaining a statutory register of digital verification service (DVS), consulting on the UK trust framework, issuing an official UK digital identity trust mark (rather pointlessly, in my opinion) so that people can see which services can be trusted and enabling public authorities to share information with providers of registered services. However, just to reiterate, what the government is not planning to do is to create a digital identity. The government 'super app" currently under development will be used only to log in to government services and will not provide a portable digital identity for more general use. The beta version of the app launched for iPhones and Android devices in June but is currently just bookmarks for the existing government website. The government expect the private sector create the identity schemes within their framework, and are indifferent as to whether it is the banks or media companies or social media or brands or anyone else who will deliver it. My own view is that is should be banks who lead the way, but perhaps it will be the crypto world that will rise to meet this challenge by using new technology to bring a new approach to the problem of identity in the new economy.. National Digital Identity? No, Entitlement With new age verification laws coming into place on (and with the Supreme Court upholding a Texas age-verification law) and with plenty of other examples where credentials are required for offline use (you cannot rent an e-scooter, for example, without submitting ID), the New York Times puts forward a typical response and saying that 'a comprehensively different internet is coming into view: one where, before you can do much of anything, you need to reveal who you are'. But this simply is not true: you do not have to reveal who you are to prove that you are old enough to look at pornography or that you are old enough to rent an e-scooter and that you have a driver's licence issued by a recognised authority. Let us rethink digital identity from this privacy-enhancing perspective. A digital identity infrastructure is vital national infrastructure that is desperately needed to support our transition to a new economy, not one that stutters along digitising the relics of the post-industrial revolution bureaucratic response to urban anonymity. We have all of the technologies that we need to build the new kind of digital identity that we need for the 21st century — zero-knowledge proofs, verifiable credentials, strong authentication — and now we need to put them to work to deliver not a National Identity Scheme (NIS) as previously envisaged but a National Entitlement Scheme (NES). The crucial difference between the two is that an identity scheme is about who people are, whereas an entitlement scheme is about what people are: that is, over 18 and entitled to drive, or a parent and a lawyer or whatever. By shifting the essence of the infrastructure from establishing someone's identity, which is then used as a key into some other database in order to obtain the actual credential required. To take a simplest example, when buying a drink in the pub, the bartender should be asking for proof that I am over 18, not proof that I am David Birch. This is easily achieved now that Open ID for Verifiable Presentations 9OID4VP is a standard. This is a protocol for requesting and presenting verifiable credentials and it delivers interoperability across wallet types, credential formats and trust frameworks. OID4VP powers EUDI Wallet pilots, cross-border digital ID systems and real-world deployments like the California DMV's mDL login service. A comprehensive and convenient digital identity infrastructure transforms the prospects for fintechs, simply because dealing with the identity demands on financial services organisations is so complex and expensive. Know-your-customer (KYC) and associated issues such as know your buisness, employee, agent, business partner and so on have served as a moat around the incumbents. If startups were able to use an infrastructure that takes care of these things, they could concerate their resources on developing products and services to compete more effectively to make financial services better for the rest of the economy.
