Treasury says Healey hasn’t committed to cutting welfare bill before election, claiming interview answer misinterpreted
John Healey is rowing back from his answer in an interview in the Today programme implying he wanted welfare spending to go down before the next general election. According to Chris Mason, the BBC’s political editor, Treasury sources are saying his words have been over-interpreted.
This relates to what Healey said in an interview with Nick Robinson for the Today programme. It was broadcast this morning, but recorded yesterday, and the BBC has written it up in a story on its website headlined: “Healey promises reduction in welfare bill before next election”.
For the record, here is the key exchange.
Robinson: Let’s take welfare if we could. £۱۹bn up in the year ahead. That’s the entire police budget for England and Wales. That’s the entire annual defence equipment budget. And yet in your speech you said, well, we’ve got a couple of reports coming next month, then we’ll have a white paper, which in non-Westminster jargon means a consultation, then you’ll have some legislation, then you’ll have a row in the Labour party. You’re not going to make any of these cuts before the next election, are you?
Healey: Well first, I’ve said clearly, the prime minister said as well, we have to bring the benefits bill down. You don’t do that by crude cuts, especially when people are feeling the cost of living pressures. We do have a big report, two big reports being produced next month, that will help us map out the way that we need to change the system for the long run. We are in fact reducing and have been over the last two years the rate of increase in the welfare bill compared to the previous period – I’m afraid to say – of a broken system the Conservatives put in place. We’re bringing back and have brought back face to face assessments which they axed for instance. We’ve been changing universal credits so people aren’t branding themselves as too sick to work in order to make that system work better.
Robinson: But you’re reducing the rate of increase in welfare spending chancellor aren’t you? But the OBR’s forecast is that £۱ in every £۸ will be spent on welfare by ۲۰۳۰ or thereabouts. You’ve got to make cuts, haven’t you?
Healey: This system is unsustainable. I’ve been clear about that. The prime minister’s been clear about it ….
Robinson: Briefly, because I want to give you the chance to talk about other things – there will be cuts in welfare before the election?
Healey: There will be there will be a reduction in the benefits bill. We’ll do that in a Labour way and we will do that because it is simply not good for Britain or progressive to have a bigger and bigger benefits bill and I feel a moral duty to deal with these youngsters who at the moment have been written off by previous governments.
The answer highlighted in bold is what gave the BBC its story. Healey paused slightly between the first “there will be” and the second “there will be” and it would be perfectly reasonable to interpret it as:
There will be. [Direct answer to Robinson’s question.] There will be a reduction in the benefits bill [etc etc – Healey expanding on the answer.]
But the Treasury is implying what he meant was:
There will be, there will be a reduction in the benefits bill [Healey simply repeating three words as he launches into more general answer, not answering Robinson directly, but just explaining the government’s approach.]
Reasonable people could interpret is either way. But Mason said the Treasury had told him the first interpretation was not accurate, and that if Healey really wanted to commit to getting cutting the benefits bill before the general election, he would have announced that in the budget.
Given that Alan Milburn himself has said that his plans to tackle youth unemployment may require more spending upfront in return for savings later, and given that welfare reforms often take most of a decade to roll out, it does seem unlikely that Healey intended to say the benefits bill would be cut before the election.
But, as Mason pointed out on the Today programme, “correcting” this story means the Treasury is implicitly saying benefit spending won’t go down before the election – which is very helpful to the Tories and Reform UK.
Key events
Healey accused by Resolution Foundation of ‘complete failure’ to target energy bill support at those most in need
Good morning. The day after the budget is often the moment when big initiatives announced by the chancellor the day before with a flourish start to unravel as experts pore over the small print. There is not much of that happening this morning – mainly because John Healey did not have any really big initiatives up his sleeve. Compared with a normal budget, his tax and spending initiatives were mostly relatively minor. That means that the opposition parties have been struggling to find things to attack, and so instead they have resorted to criticising Healey for what he did not do: slash welfare (the Tory/Reform UK solution), or join the EU’s single market (the Lib Dems’).
Healey has given interviews to all the main broadcasters, which are playing out this morning, but they were recorded last night and they don’t have any sensational new revelations. As Rowena Mason reports, one of the top lines was Healey saying he would cut welfare spending before the election.
But there were other lines in the interviews too. I will be posting all the highlights this morning.
The two main public spending thinktanks, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, are both publishing reports assessing the budget this morning. The RF has issued a news release with its main findings and its assessment of the overall economic impact of the budget measures highlights three problems.
The poorest half of households will gain £۱۵۸ on average from cost of living support this year and next, just £۱۴ more than the £۱۴۴ received by the richest half – highlighting a complete failure to target help at those who need it most.
Tight spending plans beyond ۲۰۲۸-۲۹ imply departmental budgets will take more of the strain in the future. But if the ۳% defence target is met and real health spending continues to grow at ۲.۶%, pencilled-in spending totals imply that funding for ۱۳ ‘unprotected’ departments will fall to just ۴.۷% of GDP by ۲۰۳۱-۳۲, close to the post-austerity historic low.
Median real annual disposable incomes for working age households are set to grow by a paltry £۶۰۰ over the course of the parliament. Worse still, those gains are already behind us. Between now (۲۰۲۶-۲۷) and the end of the parliament (۲۰۲۸-۲۹), typical incomes are forecast to fall in total by £۱,۰۵۰ (۳ per cent).
This is one reason why so many people continue to think Andy Burnham will call an election next spring (before the electorate feels the full misery of getting poorer) – despite Burnham yesterday saying he would not hold one within the next ۱۲ months.
Here is the agenda for the day.
۹am: Jonathan Haskel, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and Ruth Curtice, head of the Resolution Foundation, speak at an event where the RF is presenting its budget analysis.
۹.۳۰am: Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
۱۰.۳۰am: Helen Miller, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, presents the IFS’s budget analysis.
۱۱.۳۰am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
After ۱۱.۳۰am: MPs resume the budget debate in the Commons.
Lunchtime: Andy Burnham is on a visit to a Rolls-Royce factory in the Midlands where he is speaking to the media.
I’m afraid we are no longer able to have comments open below the line every day on this blog. If you want to contact me, please email politics.live@theguardian.com. You can use this email to flag up corrections, comments for publication, questions or complaints.
