Brendan Roberts is Executive Officer for Policy Development for the Welsh Liberal Democrats. He is a former civil servant and previously worked within the Universal Credit system as a Work Coach. He has also contributed to discussions around welfare reform and care leaver support in Wales.

The views laid out in this article are the views of the author and may not reflect the position of the Social Liberal Forum

Beveridge, Bevan, and Brendan

Britain doesn’t need a Universal Basic Income. It needs targeted support, stable housing, and universal basic services that restore dignity and security.

When people think of the great reformers of the British welfare state, two names rightly dominate the conversation: William Beveridge and Aneurin Bevan. One identified the “five giants” of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness. The other built the NHS, perhaps the greatest civic institution Britain has ever created.

Both understood something fundamental: the welfare state exists not simply to redistribute money, but to preserve dignity and allow people to participate fully in society.

Yet Britain in 2026 faces a very different set of pressures to those of 1945. Millions of people feel trapped between insecure work, rising living costs, overstretched public services, and welfare systems that too often feel punitive and bureaucratic rather than supportive.

That is why I believe modern liberals need to stop arguing simply about whether the state should be “bigger” or “smaller” and instead focus on whether it is functioning properly.

Universal Isn’t Always Fair

Universal Basic Income has become increasingly fashionable in recent years, particularly amongst younger progressives frustrated by poverty and economic insecurity. The appeal is understandable. The idea that every citizen receives a guaranteed income regardless of circumstance sounds simple, humane, and empowering.

But I remain unconvinced that a fully universal payment is the best use of limited public resources.

A welfare state should focus support where it is genuinely needed most. Giving the same unconditional payment to millionaires and to vulnerable young adults leaving care may sound equal on paper, but it is not necessarily fair in practice.

That is why I believe we should instead explore what I would call Targeted Basic Incomes.

The System Isn’t Broken in Theory, It’s Broken in Practice

Rather than attempting to create a hugely expensive universal payment for everybody, a Targeted Basic Income could provide guaranteed financial stability to groups who face structural disadvantage or exceptional life circumstances.

Care leavers, unpaid carers, and some disabled people are obvious examples.

My own thinking on this has been shaped not just politically, but professionally. As an ex-civil servant, I previously worked within the Universal Credit system as a Work Coach. I saw firsthand both the strengths and frustrations of the system.

Contrary to some political rhetoric, Universal Credit itself is not inherently a bad concept. Simplifying multiple benefits into one payment and ensuring support adjusts as circumstances change are sensible objectives.

The problem is that too often the system fails in practice.

Long waits, administrative confusion, punitive sanctions, and a culture of suspicion have damaged trust in the welfare state. Equally, PIP assessments have become notorious for causing stress and frustration to disabled people forced to repeatedly justify their conditions to a bureaucracy seemingly designed around disbelief.

A modern welfare state should not treat vulnerable people as potential fraudsters first and citizens second.

Stability Changes Lives

My perspective was also shaped through contributing to discussions around the design of the care leaver basic income pilot in Wales.

What struck me throughout those conversations was how differently society treats care-experienced young people compared to almost everyone else their age.

Many young adults rely on family support well into their twenties, whether financially, emotionally, or practically. Yet care leavers are often expected to navigate housing, employment, education, and bills almost entirely alone.

That cliff edge is not freedom. It is abandonment disguised as independence.

A Targeted Basic Income for care leavers would not be about creating dependency. It would be about creating stability and allowing people to build independent lives without living permanently on the brink of crisis.

The same principle applies to unpaid carers. Across the United Kingdom, millions quietly provide care to loved ones every single day, often at enormous emotional and financial cost. Likewise, many disabled people face not only additional financial pressures, but structural barriers to participating fully in society.

Support systems should therefore be built around stability, trust, and dignity rather than endless reassessment and bureaucratic hostility.

Prevention Is Cheaper Than Crisis

Income alone is not enough.

One of the great mistakes in modern politics is assuming that living standards can only be improved through direct cash transfers. In reality, the cost of essential services often determines quality of life just as much as income itself.

Housing is perhaps the clearest example of this. Stable housing is not just a social issue; it is the foundation upon which employment, education, mental health, and personal stability are built.

During work on the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto, one of the proposals I pushed strongly for was multi-year funding for Housing First programmes. To me, this should not even be controversial. If we know Housing First works, organisations should not be trapped in short-term funding cycles that undermine long-term planning.

The same principle applies to healthcare and preventative services more broadly.

It is increasingly absurd that many people can access a GP appointment free at the point of use but delay dental treatment for years because of cost. Likewise, poor eyesight should not become a financial burden. Basic eye tests and standard single-vision lenses should be treated as essential preventative healthcare, not luxury consumer goods.

This is where the idea of Universal Basic Services becomes increasingly important.

This is not about creating a society where the government pays for every possible service imaginable. It is about identifying the essentials required for people to participate fully and healthily in modern life.

Preventative public services are not just morally right; they are fiscally sensible. Early intervention almost always costs less than crisis management later. Stable housing, preventative healthcare, and targeted support reduce pressure elsewhere in the system precisely because they stop crises escalating.

The Next Welfare State Must Be Built Around Dignity

Beveridge identified the giants of his age. Bevan built institutions to confront them. Our task is not to endlessly relive the arguments of the twentieth century, but to build a welfare state capable of meeting the insecurities of the twenty-first.

That means being compassionate without losing fiscal credibility, reformist without becoming ideological, and ambitious enough to believe that the government can still improve people’s lives in practical and meaningful ways.