Andy Burnham: National security can’t come at the expense of social security – BBC News
BBC Homepage
Accessibility Help
Your account
Home
News
Sport
Earth
Reel
Worklife
Travel
Culture
Future
Music
TV
Weather
Sounds
More menu
More menu
Search BBC
Home
News
Sport
Earth
Reel
Worklife
Travel
Culture
Future
Music
TV
Weather
Sounds
Close menu
BBC News
Menu
Home
Climate
World
UK
Business
Tech
Science
Entertainment & Arts
Health
In Pictures
More
BBC Verify
Newsbeat
Politics
Parliaments
Brexit
National security can’t come at the expense of social security, Burnham says
Image source:
House of Commons
By Becky Morton, Political reporter
and
Harry Farley, Political correspondent
Published 9 September 2026, 13:30 BST
Updated 1 hour ago
Andy Burnham has stated that national security "can’t come at the expense of social security" as he was questioned over defense funding at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed Burnham regarding his willingness to spend 3% of GDP on defense by 2030 and how he intended to finance this.
The Prime Minister affirmed his government’s "absolute" commitment to defense and promised to set a target date for reaching the 3% figure in the upcoming spring.
Burnham countered that he would fund defense and reduce the welfare bill through "the Labour way": by addressing education, supporting young people, and providing enhanced mental health services.
The Conservatives seized on Burnham’s comments, with a party spokesperson criticizing: "Britain heard it loud and clear today: Andy Burnham will not cut welfare to fund the defense of our country."
After PMQs, Burnham’s team emphasized his dedication to "national security as the most important duty of any government", while acknowledging the Prime Minister’s consistency in aiming to reduce the welfare bill. However, they clarified that this does not entail "crude cuts" that could push individuals into crises by causing homelessness and subsequently increasing costs for systemic support.
In the Commons session, Burnham reiterated the government’s plan to meet the NATO target of spending 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035, with a target date for reaching 3% set for the spring spending review.
The Prime Minister revealed that he had appointed John Healey, who resigned as Sir Keir Starmer’s Defense Secretary over the government’s failure to commit to a 3% increase by 2030, "because of his strong commitment to the defense of this nation."
However, Badenoch countered that 2035 was "a decade away" and "the threats are now." She questioned whether Burnham was "unable" or "just unwilling" to meet the 2030 target.
Burnham responded emphatically: "This chancellor of all chancellors will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces."
He dismissed a Conservative plan to partially fund increased defense spending by saving at least £4 billion through reforms to housing benefit.
"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," he said.
"Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security."
He added: "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."
Badenoch characterized Burnham’s remarks as "unbelievable," asserting that "we need to fund our defense, not spend all of our money on welfare."
Burnham concluded by reiterating his commitment to "bring the welfare budget down" through addressing the number of young people not in education, employment, or training.
