Burnham sets 3.5% defence target for 2035, eyes welfare reform

Andy Burnham told the House of Commons on Wednesday that “national security can’t come at the expense of social security,” rebuffing a Conservative proposal to cut £4bn from housing benefit to fund increased defence spending. The exchange came at Prime Minister’s Questions, where Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed Burnham over whether he would meet a target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 and how he would pay for it.

The debate lands ahead of a spring spending review that will set a UK path to 3% defence spending and coincides with Department for Work and Pensions figures projecting welfare costs to rise to £408.6bn by 2030/31. Cutting the welfare bill is a key part of Conservative proposals for funding increased defence spending, and the government has asked former minister Alan Milburn to examine the issue of young people classified as “Neets” — not in education, employment or training — with his final recommendations expected shortly.

Burnham said the government’s commitment to defence was “absolute” and that he would set a target date for reaching 3% in the spring. He also confirmed the government would meet the Nato target of 3.5% defence spending by 2035. Asked how he would pay for higher defence spending, he rejected the Conservative plan to draw at least £4bn from housing benefit reform.

“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 told MPs.

“Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security,” he said. “This side of the House will not be forced to choose between the two and we will set out a plan to get to 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review.”

On funding the higher defence outlay, Burnham said he would “bring the welfare budget down” by tackling the number of young people not in education, employment or training. “That’s the Labour way to get the welfare bill down,” he said. “That is the right way to fund defence.”

In response to a question about whether he could meet the 2030 target, Burnham said: “This chancellor of all chancellors will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces.” He noted he had appointed John Healey, who resigned as Sir Keir Starmer’s defence secretary over the previous government’s failure to commit to a 3% defence increase by 2030, “because of his strong commitment to the defence of this nation.”

Badenoch accused Burnham of “kicking defence spending into the long grass,” saying 2035 was “a decade away” and that “the threats are now.” She questioned whether the prime minister was “unable” or “just unwilling” to meet the 2030 target.

Badenoch called the position “unbelievable,” adding: “We need to fund our defence, not spend all of our money on welfare.” She also labelled Burnham “continuity Keir,” accusing him of failing to cut welfare while presenting himself as a change candidate. As prime minister, Starmer had attempted to cut disability benefits but was forced to row back in the face of opposition from Labour MPs.

A Conservative Party spokesperson said after PMQs: “Britain heard it loud and clear today: Andy Burnham will not cut welfare to fund the defence of our country. The prime minister is prioritising the ballooning benefits bill over our national security. Shameful.”

After the exchange, Burnham’s team stressed that “national security is the most important duty of any government” and that the prime minister had been “consistent about getting the welfare bill down.” They said that did not mean “crude cuts” that could put people into crisis by making them homeless and creating higher costs elsewhere in the system to support them.