National security can't come at expense of social security, Burnham says

This video can not be played National security 'can't come at the expense of social security', says Burnham Andy Burnham has said national security "can't come at the expense of social security", as he was challenged over funding for defence at Prime Minister's Questions. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed Burnham over whether he would spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 and how he would pay for this. The PM said the government's commitment to defence was "absolute" and he would set a target date to reach the 3% figure in the spring. Burnham said he would fund defence and get the welfare bill down in "the Labour way", , supporting young people and providing more mental health support. The Conservatives seized on the comments, with a party spokesperson saying: "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 PMQs, Burnham's team was at pains to stress his commitment that "national security is the most important duty of any government", and stressed the prime minister had been "consistent about getting the welfare bill down". But they said that did not mean "crude cuts" that could "put people into crisis" . Badenoch accuses Burnham of kicking defence spending into the long grass British army told to stop non-essential training exercises to save money In the Commons session, Burnham repeated that the government would meet the Nato target of spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with a target date for hitting the 3% figure set out in the spending review in the spring. The PM said he had appointed John Healey, who resigned as Sir Keir Starmer's defence secretary over the government's failure to commit to a 3% increase by 2030, "because of his strong commitment to the defence of this nation". However, Badenoch hit back 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.