National security can't come at expense of social security, Burnham says

Andy Burnham told MPs that national security cannot be sacrificed for social security as he faced Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s questioning on defence funding at Prime Minister’s Questions. Badenoch pressed whether Labour would meet the NATO‑mandated target of spending 3 % of GDP on defence by 2030 and how it would be financed, while the prime minister pledged an “absolute” commitment to defence and said a target date for the 3 % level would be set in the spring. Burnham replied that Labour would fund the armed forces and reduce the welfare bill “the Labour way”, by reforming education, supporting young people and expanding mental‑health services, and stressed that any cuts must not create homelessness or a crisis that would raise other public‑service costs.

The debate highlighted the fiscal tension between rising benefit expenditures and the government’s defence ambitions. The Department for Work and Pensions projects benefits to reach £408.6 billion by 2030/31, a figure the Conservatives intend to tap by saving at least £4 billion through housing‑benefit reforms—an approach Burnham rejected as likely to produce unprecedented homelessness and push hundreds of thousands of children into temporary accommodation. Instead, he argued that cutting the welfare bill should focus on reducing the number of “NEETs” – young people not in education, employment or training – a problem the government has tasked former minister Alan Milburn with addressing in an upcoming report.

Both parties claimed to prioritize national security, but their strategies diverge sharply. The prime minister announced the appointment of John Healey, a former Labour defence secretary, to underline a cross‑party commitment to reaching the 3.5 % of GDP defence target by 2035, with the 3 % milestone to be detailed in the forthcoming spending review. Badenoch dismissed the 2035 timeline as too distant, accusing Burnham of either inability or unwillingness to meet the 2030 goal, while Burnham maintained that Labour would not be forced to choose between defence and welfare and would present a plan to achieve the 3.5 % target without crude cuts. The exchange underscores how the looming rise in benefit spending and the pressure to meet NATO defence thresholds are shaping the political narrative ahead of the next spending review.

⚡ Effects Interpreter