In his first Prime Ministers Questions as Labour Party leader, Andy Burnham confronted the issue of the increasing welfare bill alongside the government’s defence spending. During Wednesday’s session, Burnham faced Conservative opposition leader Kemi Badenoch, who challenged him on his plans regarding Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits.
Burnham emphasised his commitment to maintaining strong national defence, stating that the government’s dedication to defence was “absolute.” He announced an intention to set a target date in the spring for reaching the goal of allocating 3% of GDP to defence.
At the same time, Burnham pledged to reduce the welfare bill through what he described as “the Labour way.” He and Chancellor John Healey are currently awaiting the findings of two important reviews: the Timms Review into Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which has already issued an interim report highlighting that the benefit is “not fit for purpose,” and a second review focused on Universal Credit and addressing the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).
READ MORE: M42 Motorway Closed Near Birmingham Airport Following Crash
READ MORE: Thousands of parents decline pay rises to retain tax-free childcare
The Conservatives seized upon Burnham’s remarks, with a party spokesperson stating, “Britain heard it loud and clear today: Andy Burnham will not cut welfare to fund the defence of our country. The prime minister is prioritising the ballooning benefits bill over our national security. Shameful.”
Following PMQs, Burnham’s team emphasised the prime minister’s consistent view that “national security is the most important duty of any government” and his determination to bring down the welfare bill. However, they clarified that this would not entail “crude cuts” that risk plunging people into crisis.
Burnham voiced concerns about potential drastic reductions in housing benefit, noting, “I don’t think, myself, that taking £4bn out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue because that would create levels of homelessness in this country… that we wouldn’t have seen before, hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation.”
He further asserted, “Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security. This side of the House will not be forced to choose between the two and we will set out a plan to get to 3.5% [of GDP] by 2035 at the spending review.”
Badenoch described Burnham’s comments as “unbelievable,” insisting, “We need to fund our defence, not spend all of our money on welfare.”
Burnham responded by reiterating his commitment to reduce the welfare budget by focusing on lowering the number of young people not in education, employment, or training. “That’s the Labour way to get the welfare bill down,” he said. “That is the right way to fund defence.”