Andy Burnham wants to cut the benefits bill – these are his main options
Andy Burnham has signalled that his Labour government will revisit welfare reform, confirming he wants to cut the benefits bill by "changing the nature of the support" available and making more awards conditional on claimants accepting opportunities offered to them. Any concrete changes are likely to wait until two government-commissioned reviews, into youth unemployment and the Personal Independence Payment (Pip), report their findings later this year, meaning the new prime minister is avoiding the blunt spending cuts that Sir Keir Starmer failed to push through in July last year.
Options reportedly under consideration include tightening conditionality for young claimants, possibly reviving a shelved plan to restrict universal credit's health element for under-22s, and overhauling Pip, which a review by disability minister Sir Stephen Timms found "no longer fit for purpose." Mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety and ADHD now account for 1.56 million of the four million Pip claimants (39 per cent), with claims almost doubling since 2019 and spending rising from £15 billion to around £32 billion in 2025/26. Previous attempts to tighten Pip eligibility criteria were abandoned after more than 100 Labour MPs rebelled, making a similarly blunt approach unlikely this time.
In short
- Burnham wants welfare reform to cut Britain's benefits bill
- Changes await youth unemployment and Pip review findings
- Pip spending has doubled since 2019 to about £32bn
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The case for welfare reform rests on fiscal sustainability and encouraging workforce participation. With PIP spending rising from £15 billion to £32 billion since 2019, proponents argue there is a legitimate need to ensure the system remains affordable whilst targeting support to those most in need. They contend that increasing conditionality, particularly for younger claimants, and tightening eligibility can incentivise labour market engagement where possible, reflecting values of mutual responsibility and self-sufficiency rather than creating unnecessary dependency.
The case against
The case against tightening welfare rests on the genuine vulnerabilities of claimants and the inadequacy of employment prospects for those with disabilities or mental health conditions. The rise in mental health claims reflects real and growing need, particularly post-pandemic, rather than unnecessary generosity, and critics argue that conditionality risks penalising people facing genuine barriers to work who cannot simply be incentivised into unsuitable employment. The previous parliamentary rebellion of over 100 Labour MPs against PIP changes reflects concern that blunt eligibility reforms would harm vulnerable constituents, and that genuine reform should expand support and opportunities rather than restrict access.
Explained simply
The UK spends tens of billions annually on welfare benefits for unemployed, disabled and low-income people. This spending has grown substantially in recent years, making welfare reform a significant policy concern.
Two main schemes are under discussion: Universal Credit, which helps those out of work or earning low wages, and Personal Independence Payment (Pip), designed for disabled people. Both have seen major cost increases, with Pip roughly doubling since 2019.
Previous attempts to tighten welfare rules have provoked strong opposition, including from within the Labour party itself. This history means welfare reform faces political challenges and requires carefully considered approaches.