Prime Minister Andy Burnham has insisted that national security cannot be achieved by dismantling social support systems, pushing back against Conservative demands to cut welfare in order to fund increased defence spending.
At Prime Minister's Questions, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch challenged Burnham over his commitment to raising defence spending to 3% of gross domestic product by 2030, questioning how he would finance such an increase without cutting the welfare budget. Burnham responded that his government would meet the NATO target of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with a specific date for reaching 3% to be announced in the spring spending review.
The exchange highlighted a fundamental disagreement between the two parties over how to fund defence expansion. Badenoch has proposed a Conservative plan to reach 3% of GDP by 2029-30 through approximately £10bn in annual savings, with welfare reforms forming a central pillar of that strategy. Burnham rejected this approach, particularly the Conservative proposal to save at least £4bn through housing benefit reforms.
"I don't think, myself, that taking £4bn out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue because that would create levels of homelessness in this country... that we wouldn't have seen before, hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation,"Burnham said.
"Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security."
Burnham's team moved quickly after the session to clarify his position, emphasising that he regards national security as "the most important duty of any government". They stressed that while the government remained committed to reducing the welfare bill, this would not involve "crude cuts" that could push vulnerable people into homelessness and create additional costs elsewhere in the public system.
The prime minister outlined an alternative approach to reducing welfare expenditure, focusing on tackling the root causes of benefit dependency rather than cutting payments. He highlighted efforts to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training, a group known as "Neets", which currently stands at nearly one million in the UK.
"That's the Labour way to get the welfare bill down,"Burnham said.
"That is the right way to fund defence."
Badenoch responded by accusing Burnham of failing to make difficult choices.
"We need to fund our defence, not spend all of our money on welfare,"she said, adding that his position represented continuity with his predecessor rather than genuine change.
The defence spending timeline dispute
The disagreement over timing has become a central point of contention. Badenoch argued that 2035 was "a decade away" while "the threats are now", questioning whether Burnham was "unable" or "just unwilling" to commit to the 2030 target. However, according to government sources, Burnham did not actually commit to hitting 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 despite wording at PMQs that could have suggested otherwise.
Burnham pointed to his appointment of John Healey as defence secretary as evidence of his commitment to strengthening Britain's defence capabilities. Healey had previously resigned from his previous role over the government's failure to commit to 3% of GDP by 2030, making his appointment a symbolic gesture toward addressing defence concerns.
In response to Burnham's statements, the prime minister insisted:
"This chancellor of all chancellors will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces."He committed to setting out a plan to reach 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review.
The welfare spending challenge
Welfare expenditure has become an increasingly pressing fiscal issue. Spending on benefits is forecast to rise to £408.6bn in 2030-31, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions. The government has tasked former minister Alan Milburn with investigating solutions to youth unemployment and is expected to publish his recommendations shortly.
The Conservatives have argued that their package would include housing-benefit reform and other cuts to fund the rise in defence spending. This approach reflects a broader Conservative strategy of using welfare savings to finance defence increases.
Burnham's rejection of this strategy reflects tensions within the Labour government itself. As prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer had attempted to cut disability benefits but was forced to reverse course following opposition from Labour MPs, illustrating the political sensitivity surrounding welfare reductions.
What happens next
The government has indicated that the spending review in the spring is when it will set the target date for reaching 3% of GDP on defence. This announcement is expected to clarify the government's position on the timeline for meeting the 3% threshold and provide detail on how the additional defence funding will be allocated without resorting to welfare cuts.
