Burnham denies preventing ministers from speaking about plans for closer relationship with EU – UK politics live

For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.

Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, has criticised the senior Labour MP Tan Dhesi for saying the government is not raising military spending quickly enough.

Dhesi is chair of the Commons defence committee and yesterday, in his capacity as committee chair, he issued a statement about the budget saying:

The defence committee is pleased that the defence investment plan has been fully funded in the budget, but we had hoped to see the chancellor set out a precise pathway to spending 3% – and eventually 3.5% – of GDP on defence. Instead, some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review.

There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles. We need to urgently rebuild our capabilities now, or we risk leaving ourselves seriously vulnerable in the event of a major conflict.

Speaking in the Commons during the budget, Streeting referred to this statement saying:

I think that is completely unfounded criticism … It would be fair criticism if this government had not already made decisions that is leading to the fastest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. Not in future years, already, on the basis of our first two years.

But Streeting also insisted Dhesi was “a good friend”.

Last year Andy Burnham told a Guardian podcast that he hopes to see the UK rejoin the EU in his lifetime. He is currently 56, and he has recently said that he stands by this comment – although he has also stressed that this does not necessarily mean that he expects his proposed debate on a closer relationship with the EU to result in a proposal to rejoin after the election.

In his interview on Channel 4 News, John Healey, the chancellor, was also asked if he wanted Britain to rejoin in his lifetime. He replied:

I’m older than Andy Burnham. I don’t expect to see that …

I expect, and my job is to try and make the most of Britain’s position now.

Healey is 66.

John Healey, the chancellor, has now personally clarified that the government is not committed to bringing down the welfare bill before the next election. He did so in an interview with Channel 4 News, revising a message he gave out with an ambiguous answer in an interview with the Today programme. (See 9.23am.)

Asked if he was committed to reducing the welfare bill this parliament, he replied:

We’re certainly committed to bringing the cost of the welfare bill down. I’ve said that, the prime minister’s said that. It is not correct to say that we set any schedule or time limit for that.

Asked if that meant it would not come down this parliament, he replied:

It’s not correct to say that we’re going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament because we’ve not set a timetable for that.

Channel 4 News sent out a press release with the transcript headlined: “John Healey tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy Labour will not bring welfare bill down in this Parliament”. Healey’s not having much luck with media today because this does not seem 100% accurate either. He is saying the government has not committed to bringing the welfare bill down this parliament. But that is not the same as saying the government has committed to not bringing it down. In practice, given the circumstances and what Healey and Andy Burnham are saying, it seems very unlikely that welfare spending will fall this parliament. The press release headline is a bit misleading because it implies Healey has actually ruled that out as an option.

Patrick Butler is the Guardian’s social policy editor.

One of the government’s arguably most unloved policies – the biggest reform of local government for 50 years – continues to stumble on, with few signs that the rancour and confusion surrounding the project is dissipating.

The process started nearly two years ago, with proposals to abolish the current two-tier system of districts and counties in favour of a smaller number of unitary authorities – or “mega-councils” – covering large areas.

Plans juddered to a temporary halt in September amid legal challenges from several councils, including Reform-led Kent, Essex, and Lancashire. Ministers said a short internal review was needed to reassess merger decisions.

The outcome of that review was announced today. (See 3.20pm.) Local government minister Jim McMahon said merger decisions already made in 13 areas would be withdrawn and “reconsidered” – plunging the project into another period of uncertainty. There are another two areas were decisions are still being awaited.

The frustration across local government, which has never shown huge appetite for what it sees as a costly and time-intensive reorganisation agenda, was palpable.

Jonathan Carr West of the Local Government Information Unit said:

Councils in all of those 15 areas have put serious time, money and goodwill into this process, at government’s urging. All that effort feels in jeopardy … That is a fragile basis for a national reform programme.

Ministers insist that withdrawing those decisions does not mean the process has been abandoned. It says fresh decisions will have been made by early next year in all areas, and the new councils will be up and running by 2029.

But many councils remain unconvinced. Richard Wright, chair of the Local Councils Network, said:

Unfortunately, with some councils threatening legal challenges, even final decisions from government may not be the end of the process, so uncertainty is likely to continue for a while.

And Eamonn O’Brien, chair of the Local Government Association, said:

While today’s announcement provides some certainty for some areas, many councils remain frustrated by the situation they have been placed in. All councils affected need urgent clarity on next steps and how costs already incurred will be met.

Shadow communities secretary Katie Lam branded the government’s approach to local reorganisation “nothing short of a farce” and “a complete joke”.

Areas where plans will be reconsidered are: Derbyshire and Derby; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Hertfordshire; Kent and Medway; Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool; Leicestershire, Leicester, and Rutland; Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Nottinghamshire and Nottingham; Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent; Essex, Southend on Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; Suffolk.

Areas where reorganisation is going ahead: Surrey; East Sussex and Brighton and Hove; GLoucestershire; Oxfordshire; Warwickshire; Worcestershire.

Decisions are awaited in: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; West Sussex.

Andy Burnham is chairing a national economic council in Glasgow tomorrow. Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh governments will be there, but the Northern Ireland executive will not be represented because of an increasingly acrimonious dispute between Sinn Féin and the DUP.

Emma Little-Pengelly, the DUP deputy first minister, has in effect blocked Michelle O’Neill, the Sinn Féin first minster, from attending. Under the power-sharing arrangements that apply at Stormont, designed to ensure unionists and nationalists have to govern together, the FM and deputy FM have equal status and Little-Pengelly has exercised her veto over their attendance at the meeting in Glasgow.

In response, O’Neill posted this on social media, accusing Little-Pengelly of a “reactive stunt”.

But Little-Pengelly defended her action, which relates to unionists being furious with O’Neill for supporting the Garvaghy Road residents who blocked an Orange Order parade at Drumcree that had been allowed by the Parades Commission. O’Neill was siding with nationalists objecting to a parade they find intimidating, but unionists argue that she should not have backed an unlawful protest.

Little-Pengelly said:

The situation surrounding the first minister’s recent conduct remains extremely serious. There is significant anger, hurt and legitimate public discontent arising from her actions. These concerns cannot simply be dismissed or minimised. This is an exceptionally serious matter, particularly given the responsibilities of the office she holds and the importance of public confidence in the rule of law.

Of further concern is the first minister’s continuing refusal to recognise or meaningfully acknowledge the depth and legitimacy of the discontent caused by her behaviour. Her approach has contributed to a significant deterioration in confidence and in the working relationship necessary to discharge the responsibilities of our joint office.

At a news conference today, Gavin Robinson, the DUP leader, backed Little-Pengelly. He said her move showed O’Neill that “law breaking must have consequences”.

Relations between Sinn Féin and the DUP were already extremely strained before Drumcree – seven months into the financial year, the executive still has not passed a budget – and this latest development shows how they are getting ever closer to collapsing entirely.

Nigel Farage has been accused of having shoved a female Liberal Democrat MP earlier this year, after he spoke about missing this week’s budget because of a previous altercation about seating. Rowena Mason has the story.

The Conservatives have branded the Labour’s local government reorganisation programme “nothing short of a farce”. Speaking in the Commons in response to Jim McMahon’s statement saying some reorganisation projects are going ahead, while 15 are still being reviewed (see 3.20pm), Katie Lam, the shadow communities secretary, said:

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say that from start to finish, this government’s approach to local government reorganisation has been nothing short of a farce …

The vast majority of councils are none the wiser after what we have heard today … People across the country are left without any sense of which council will be providing services in the year and years to come, while councillors and council officials have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money planning and preparing for new authorities, which may never materialise.

The money spent on this farcical reorganisation process should have been spent instead on resurfacing roads, collecting bins, and maintaining parks, local government functions that people actually care about.

For all the prime minister’s talk about local government, this whole approach to devolution has shown nothing but contempt for local democracy.

Five counties have had their local government reorganisation plans confirmed, as officials said all regions in England would have final decisions by next year, the Press Assocation reports. PA says:

In a Commons statement, local government minister Jim McMahon said ministers had found the original criteria for the reorganisations was “robust”, after they were reviewed when Andy Burnham became PM.

The changes are part of the government’s flagship local government policy announced by Keir Starmer’s government.

It aims to replace existing two-tier systems of councils with one unitary body that will look after all local services, to streamline decision-making.

The previous proposals were announced by former communities secretary Steve Reed earlier this year, but reviewed by Labour in September.

Eamonn O’Brien, chair of the Local Government Association, said councils were “frustrated” by the process and needed “urgently clarity”.

In its news release about the plans, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Governmentsays:

The five areas where the government is minded to proceed are:

-In East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two unitary proposal including boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove City Council, except for the parish of Falmer.

-The one unitary proposal in Gloucestershire;

-The three unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes.

-The two unitary proposal in Warwickshire;

-The two unitary proposal in Worcestershire.

In another 15 areas, plans are still being reviewed.

John Healey did not just sound sceptical about rejoining the single market, or the EU proper, in his GB News interview. (See 12.14pm.) In an interview with LBC, he said that he did not accept the growth would automatically be better if the UK were in the single market.

Asked by the presenter, Nick Ferrari, if growth would be stronger if the UK were in the EU, or the single market, Healey replied:

Well, I don’t actually accept that.

Brexit has certainly hit our level of growth. It’s certainly hit our level of trade. But we had a referendum. We’re out of the European Union.

The challenge for me now is how do we make the best of an economy which this year has proved remarkably resilient. It’s confounded the forecasters.

When it was put to him that being in the single market could boost GDP by 4-5%, Healey said:

Well, that’s part of a bigger conversation that the prime minister wants the country to have because he recognises – and everybody, many other people do – that our Brexit deal was not a good one. It’s not been good for Britain over the last decade.

But my job now is to make sure, when you’re talking about growth, is to try and reinforce that resilience in the British economy.

Most economists believe being in the single market would boost UK growth significantly. But it would also involve aligning with EU regulations and allowing free movement, which Brexiters view as politically unacceptable.

Andy Burnham has rejected claims that he has stopped ministers speaking out about his plans for a closer relationship with Europe.

As mentioned earlier (see 12.14pm), Burnham wrote to ministers yesterday saying he does not want them to “advocate for specific options or opine on the likely outcome of the process” as he opens a debate on forming a closer relationship with the EU. At GB News, this has been written up under the headline: “Andy Burnham gags Cabinet on rejoin EU plot”.

Asked if he was preventing ministers from speaking out in his pooled interview with broadcasters today, Burnham replied:

Not in the slightest. I have been working with the cabinet on the approach that we’re taking to Europe, and we have a clear approach now as we go into the next UK-EU summit, which is three weeks away.

For the record, this is what Burnham said in the letter sent to cabinet ministers yesterday.

I am clear in my conviction that the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservative government was not good enough for Britain. It has led to a decade of low growth, burdened businesses with more red tape and weakened our ability to control immigration.

It is a harder Brexit than was promised at the EU referendum.

Burnham said that at the UK-EU summit on 20 November he wanted to lock in deals on food and drink, emissions trading and a youth mobility scheme. But he said he would also set out the next steps for considering the UK’s long-term relationship with the EU. He went on:

Both the UK and the EU have changed considerably in the 10 years since the Brexit vote. Any future relationship depends on practical arrangements that are realistic for both sides, and responsive to this new reality.

I am also clear that any fundamental change to the direction of the relationship would be for the public to decide and a matter for the next parliament.

Burnham said there was an “agreed mandate” in government for the summit. He went on:

In the period beyond the summit, government policy will be to explore options for the long-term relationship with the EU for consideration in the next parliament.

At the end of this process, we will set out to the country the respective merits and drawbacks of the various options.

It is important that we remain aligned and disciplined as a government in our messaging throughout this period.

It will not be appropriate for ministers individually to advocate for specific options or opine on the likely outcome of the process.

Andy Burnham has claimed that the British economy is going “from strength to strength”.

Economists have argued that the documents published alongside the budget suggest this parliament will be dire for living standards. (See 10.21am.) But, asked about the country’s economic prospects when speaking to reporters on a visit in Derby, Burnham said:

The British economy is defying the expectations of forecasters, so this year we will grow more strongly. The growth forecast has been upgraded.

The IMF [International Monetary Fund] said last week we’re the standout nation for deficit reduction, so it remains difficult because the world is difficult and the situation in the Middle East has an impact.

But I think people should look at what the chancellor said yesterday, see a country that has got a platform of stability in the economy. We’re beginning to defy those expectations, and I’m confident that we will go from strength to strength from here.

Andy Burnham has said the government is working ‘‘flat out” to cut welfare spending.

Speaking to reporters at a Rolls-Royce factory in Derby, when asked if he could confirm what John Healey was reported to have said about planning to cut welfare spending by the next election, Burnham replied:

We want to get the welfare bill down as quickly as possible, and we’re working flat out to that end. Now that we are through the budget, the big next priority in front of us is the publication of the [Alan Milburn report on youth unemployment], long awaited, but it’s coming soon.

We just want to get stuck into supporting people to help people off benefits and into work. There’s no delay there. We want that to happen as quickly as possible.

Burnham also argued that “crude cuts” on their own would just leave people “in crisis”, requiring more public spending down the line.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson was also asked if John Healey’s comments about the EU in a GB interview this morning (see 12.14pm) were out of line with Andy Burnham’s. No, was the answer. The spokesperson said:

The position of the government, and the prime minister and the chancellor, is that a stronger relationship with our closest neighbours is in our national interest.

Healey did not say anything that contradicted Burnham’s views on Brexit. But if Burnham had been asked the GB News questions, he would have stressed the problems with the current EU relationship. Healey, instead, said “we’ve got a Brexit decision” and stressed the importance of making the best of the current arrangements.

Downing Street has said John Healey was not committing to cutting welfare spending before the general election in his Today programme interview this morning. (See 9.23am.)

Although one answer he gave to a question could be interpreted as saying that, the PM’s spokesperson said that was not Healey’s message. The spokesperson said:

We’ve never set an arbitrary target or timetable [for when the welfare bill starts to fall]. But both the prime minister and the chancellor have been crystal clear that the welfare bill needs to come down, and that we need to do that in a progressive and sustainable way and not through crude cuts which push people into hardship and puts pressure on the system elsewhere.

Asked if Healey mis-spoke in his interview, the spokesperson said:

The chancellor is completely in line with what the PM has said over the last few months that the welfare bill needs to come down and, as I say, we are not setting an arbitrary target or timetable on that.

The spokesperson said the government would be publishing Alan Milburn’s report on youth unemployment and Stephen Timms’ report on the personal independence payment (Pip), and that these would be followed by a white paper on welfare reform published next year. That will be followed by legislation.

Kemi Badenoch has described the Treasury clarification that John Healey is not promising to cut the welfare bill before the general election (see 9.23am) as “astounding”. In a response on social media, she said:

This is astounding. The government’s own figures show working-age welfare will go up by £60 BILLION by 2030, yet the Treasury has to rush out and correct the Chancellor to say there is no timetable for cutting the benefits bill. Looks like foot in mouth syndrome is spreading.

John Healey couldn’t even find £10 billion to get defence spending to 3% of GDP – the thing he quit over.

Don’t let anyone tell you this was a ‘do no harm budget’. In doing so little, Labour have harmed our economic security and they’ve harmed our national security.