National security ‘can’t come at the expense of social security’ – Andy Burnham

National security “can’t come at the expense of social security”, the Prime Minister has insisted, as he criticised Tory plans to fund defence.Tory leader Kemi Badenoch used Andy Burnham’s second Prime Minister’s Questions to question whether the Government would reach 3% for defence funding by 2030, insisting there were “serious threats to national security that cannot wait”.Mr Burnham hit back, insisting the Conservatives’ plan to fund defence by cutting housing benefits would create mass homelessness.He also insisted the Government would honour Nato commitments to reach 3.5% by 2035, with a target for 3% funding set out in the spending review.Kemi Badenoch criticised Mr Burnham during Prime Minister’s Questions (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA)PA WireThe Tories set out their plans to fund defence last week, with some £4 billion coming from a reformed housing benefit, and a further £3.1 billion through reimposing the two-child benefit cap.Mr Burnham said: “I don’t think myself that taking £4 billion 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.“We do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security.“Having strong national security also depends upon having resilience in our communities.“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% (of GDP spent on defence) by 2035 at the spending review.”Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch replied: “It’s unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He’s clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all of our money on welfare.”Mrs Badenoch said defence must be funded (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA(PA WireMrs Badenoch also accused the Government of being prepared to pay £35 billion to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but not spend money on troops.She said: “Last year, defence funding fell in real terms. That is on them.“To govern is to choose. So why is he choosing to send £35 billion to Mauritius when they (Labour) cut the money to train our troops?”Mr Burnham responded: “I don’t think she’s on strong ground when it comes to defence spending.“It was 2.5% of GDP when the last Labour government left office. It was 2.3% of GDP when the government she was in left office. It’s now set to be 2.7% in the next year. So that is the reality of the situation.Read More“It would be better to work across the floor of this House to get a fully and securely funded path to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.”Downing Street insisted Mr Burnham was committed to bringing down the welfare bill, but not through “crude cuts”.The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “He has said before, we’ve got to get serious as a country about getting the welfare bill down.”But “that doesn’t mean crude cuts that simply push people into crisis and create bigger costs elsewhere”.