Prime Minister Andy Burnham has rejected Conservative proposals to fund higher defence spending through major welfare cuts after declaring that national security “can’t come at the expense of social security”.
The remark, made during a heated exchange with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch at Prime Minister’s Questions, has quickly become a political attack line for the opposition as the parties clash over how Britain should pay for its growing defence commitments.
Burnham did not say that social security should come before national security. His actual argument was that the Government should not be forced to choose between the two.
Burnham rejects £4bn housing benefit cut
The exchange came as Badenoch challenged the Prime Minister over defence spending and the timetable for increasing Britain's military budget.
Burnham turned the argument onto Conservative proposals to find additional defence funding through reductions in welfare spending, specifically a proposed £4 billion cut to housing benefit.
He told MPs that removing £4 billion from housing benefit would risk creating levels of homelessness not seen before and leave hundreds of thousands of children living in temporary accommodation.
Burnham then told the Commons: “We do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security.”
He added that strong national security also depended on resilience within communities and said Labour would not be forced to choose between national and social security.
Badenoch: ‘It’s unbelievable’
Badenoch immediately seized on the Prime Minister's words.
She told the Commons: “It’s unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that,” before arguing that Britain needed to fund its defence rather than spend all of its money on welfare.
The Conservatives subsequently highlighted Burnham's comment as evidence for their argument that Labour is unwilling to make difficult welfare savings in order to increase defence spending.
The row has continued beyond PMQs, with Burnham defending his opposition to what he regards as crude reductions in welfare to fund the military.
What Burnham actually said
Some commentary surrounding the exchange has characterised Burnham's position as “social security before national security”.
That was not the phrase used by the Prime Minister.
His argument was that Britain should support its national security but that doing so “can’t come at the expense of social security”. He also explicitly linked strong communities and domestic resilience to national security.
The distinction is important, although the wording has nevertheless handed the Conservatives a straightforward political attack as the Government faces pressure over both rising defence expenditure and the size of the welfare bill.
Defence spending battle
The Government has committed the UK alongside its NATO allies to reaching 3.5% of GDP on core defence spending by 2035.
Burnham told MPs that the Government would set out its plan for reaching the 3.5% target at the Spending Review.
Existing Government plans provide for core NATO defence spending to reach 2.7% of GDP from 2027-28, with a commitment to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
The Government's Defence Investment Plan includes £298 billion of investment over four years and an additional £15 billion between 2026-27 and 2029-30 compared with previous plans.
The political argument is increasingly shifting from whether defence spending should rise to how quickly it should increase and where the money should come from.
Welfare becomes dividing line over defence
Badenoch's Conservatives are seeking to make reductions in welfare spending part of their answer to the funding question, while Burnham has rejected cuts which he argues would substantially increase homelessness and pressure on families.
Burnham has not ruled out welfare savings altogether and has argued for reform of the system, but Downing Street has rejected the scale and method of the reductions proposed by the Conservatives.
The exchange leaves a potentially significant dividing line between Government and opposition as Britain responds to growing international security pressures.
For the Conservatives, Burnham's remark provides an opportunity to argue that Labour is unwilling to prioritise defence when difficult spending decisions are required.
For Burnham, the counterargument is that national security cannot be separated from the economic and social resilience of the country it is intended to protect.