Andy Burnham has stated that bolstering the United Kingdom's defenses will not come at the expense of social security. During his second appearance at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), Burnham declined to provide a timetable for reaching the target of spending 3% of GDP on the military, despite a previous suggestion that this level could be achieved by 2030.
Pressed by Kemi Badenoch on how additional defense funds would be secured, Burnham criticized the opposition's suggestion of reducing housing benefits. He argued that such a move would lead to significant homelessness, with hundreds of thousands of children potentially placed in temporary accommodation. "We do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security," Burnham stated. He asserted that the government should not be compelled to choose between national security and social welfare, emphasizing that strong national security is also reliant on community resilience.
Burnham indicated that a plan to reach 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035 would be outlined at the upcoming spending review. This contrasts with a previous statement made last week, which had set a 2030 deadline for the 3% GDP target, a detail the Treasury had reportedly sought to avoid publicizing. Following that statement, Number 10 clarified that the government's position on the target remained unchanged. Chancellor John Healey has indicated that a detailed path to increased defense spending will not be revealed in the next month's Budget, but rather in the following year's spending review.
The Defense Investment Plan (Dip) currently projects defense spending to rise to 2.7% of GDP by 2027-28. Some senior Labour Members of Parliament have reportedly expressed concern that adherence to the 3% GDP target requires more concrete plans than general assurances.
Badenoch responded to Burnham's remarks by calling his position "unbelievable" and stating that defense funding is necessary, implying a reallocation from welfare spending.
