Key facts
- Andy Burnham stated national security cannot come at the expense of social security.
- Burnham rejected proposals to cut welfare benefits, such as housing benefit, to fund increased defense spending.
- He argued that cutting welfare would lead to increased homelessness and higher costs in other social services.
- Burnham proposed alternative methods to reduce the welfare bill, including support for young people not in education, employment, or training (NEETs).
- The Conservative party criticized Burnham's stance, accusing him of prioritizing welfare over national security.
- Burnham reaffirmed a commitment to reach 3.5% of GDP on defense spending by 2035.
Andy Burnham has stated that national security cannot be funded at the expense of social security, rejecting proposals to cut welfare benefits to increase defense spending. The Mayor of Greater Manchester clashed with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch during Prime Minister's Questions over the issue.
Badenoch pressed Burnham on whether he would commit to spending 3% of GDP on defense by 2030, a target the government aims to reach on its way to the NATO goal of 3.5% by 2035. Burnham responded that he would fund defense and reduce the welfare bill through measures such as improving education, supporting young people, and enhancing mental health services.
Conservatives seized on Burnham's comments, with a party spokesperson stating that Britain heard "loud and clear" that he would not cut welfare for defense. They accused the prime minister of prioritizing the benefits bill over national security. Burnham's team later emphasized his commitment to national security but stressed that this did not mean "crude cuts" to welfare that could increase homelessness and create higher costs elsewhere.
Burnham specifically rejected a Conservative proposal to save at least £4 billion by reforming housing benefit, warning that such a move would lead to significant homelessness, with hundreds of thousands of children ending up in temporary accommodation. He insisted that his party would not be forced to choose between national security and social security and would present a plan to reach 3.5% defense spending by 2035.
Badenoch called Burnham's comments "unbelievable," arguing that defense needed funding rather than excessive welfare spending. Burnham countered that he would reduce the welfare budget by tackling the number of young people not in education, employment, or training (NEETs), framing this as "the Labour way." Badenoch accused him of being "continuity Keir," implying a lack of change from previous Labour policies.
The debate comes as government spending on benefits is forecast to rise significantly, with particular concern over the nearly one million young people classified as NEETs. Former minister Alan Milburn is expected to publish recommendations on tackling the issue shortly.
Discussion