Hilary Benn defends Spring Statement boost to defence spending

Hilary Benn has defended Labour’s plans for an increase in UK defence spending whilst cutting benefits.

The NI Secretary of State said “it was right and proper” to increase defence spending as he believed the first responsibility of a government is “to protect the nation”.

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her Spring Statement on Wednesday to confirm an additional £2.2bn for the Ministry of Defence in the next financial year.

Benn said that the current welfare system is “unsustainable and doesn’t work to help people who can get back into work”.

In Wednesday’s Spring Statement, Reeves announced further benefits cuts as she attempts to meet self-imposed borrowing rules.

Existing claimants of the health element of Universal Credit will see their entitlement frozen at £97 a week until 2029-30.

The government’s own assessment suggested the cumulative impact of the benefit change could lead to 250,000 more people in poverty in the UK by 2030, including 50,000 children.

Benn said that assessment did not take into account how new government measures around returning to work may impact income positions.

“If you compare the United Kingdom with other countries, the increase in welfare payments, disability benefits in the UK, is out of line with other comparable countries.

“We have one in eight of our young people not in education, work or training, that is the future potential of the nation, we can’t sit here and shrug out shoulders. We have got to do something about it,” he added.

First Minister Michelle O’Neill called the Spring Statement a “macho agenda” at a time when the public sector is “on its knees” and the health service is in need of investment.

“This is a time for our own administration to fight back hard against this militarisation agenda,” she added.

“This does not serve the interests of the people here.”

Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly said the chancellor needed to change course and argued that Reeves was “punishing” people who were least able to “take the burden”.

Little-Pengelly said defence spending was a “necessity” but that she believed the chancellor had a range of political choices and her decisions were “a consequence of a lack of economic growth”.