John Healey’s Budget will set out a path for defence spending to hit 3% of national income by 2030, Andy Burnham said.

The Prime Minister said national security was “at the top of the priority list” ahead of the autumn statement on Wednesday.

Opposition critics and military figures have urged the Government to commit to a path for defence spending to reach 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the decade, along with a Nato pledge to hit 3.5% by 2035.

The Chancellor, who resigned as defence secretary over a dispute about the pace and extent of military funding earlier this year, has previously said the timetable will be detailed at next year’s spending review rather than the Budget.

But asked whether he would set out how to reach the target on Wednesday, Mr Burnham told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “He will set out on Wednesday the path to meet out Nato commitments.

“But we will meet out Nato commitments.”

Asked if that would include 3% of GDP by 2030 as well as 3.5% by 2035, the Prime Minister said: “It is, and we will set out a plan as to how we think is the right way to do that.”

He added that “we’ve got to make sure that issues of national security are at the top of the priority list.”

The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that reaching 3% would require an additional £17.3 billion in 2029-30.

PA Wire

The Tories have heightened their attacks over welfare spending in recent days after Mr Burnham said national security cannot “come at the expense of social security”.

The Prime Minister has insisted he is committed both to funding the military and bringing down the benefits bill, but not through “crude cuts”.

Asked on Monday whether he was convinced he could lower welfare without losing the support of his backbenchers following a rebellion over planned cuts under his predecessor Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Burnham said he was adopting a “different approach”.

“The opposition parties are out there today saying, ‘oh, just make crude cuts to the welfare, the welfare budget’.

“I personally think that won’t work, and it isn’t right to do that anyway because it just leads to more and more failure and crisis and spending that isn’t helpful for anybody,” he said.

“I think we go at this a different way, which is guaranteeing support for young people up front in a way that we’ve not done before and then giving them in-work support to hold down a job or a training placement.

“It’s a different approach that we’re building, but that’s one I want to make sustainable for the long run.”

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Government of being “all over the place on defence spending” and questioned whether Mr Burnham had intended to commit to that level of defence spending.

“I don’t think Andy Burnham realises he commits to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 in this interview… his Defence Secretary won’t even make that commitment!” she said in a post on social media.

“When the Government are saying Britain needs to be ready for war in 1,000 days, hitting a defence spending target in 2035 is too late.

“Getting to 3% by 2030 means spending the money to be ready NOW, not in 9 years time.”

Burnham Says Budget Will Set Out Path to Meet Defence Spending Pledge by 2030

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has promised that the government’s Budget will set out a path towards increasing Britain’s defence spending to 3% of national income by 2030, as pressure mounts for ministers to demonstrate that the country can meet its military commitments.

The announcement comes at a critical moment for the government, with growing concerns about European security, Russia’s military ambitions and the long-term ability of Britain’s armed forces to respond to emerging threats.

Burnham has insisted that national security remains at the top of his government’s priorities. He has also promised that Britain will meet its commitments to NATO, including the longer-term target of spending 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defence requirements by 2035.

However, the financial implications are substantial. Ministers must explain how they intend to increase military funding while managing public debt, protecting essential public services and delivering Labour’s wider domestic agenda.

The Budget, delivered by Chancellor John Healey, is therefore expected to become an important test of whether the government can turn its defence promises into a credible and sustainable financial plan.

Burnham Confirms Defence Spending Roadmap

Speaking ahead of the Budget, Burnham said the government would outline how it intended to meet its NATO commitments.

Asked whether the plan would include raising defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 and 3.5% by 2035, the Prime Minister confirmed that both targets would be addressed.

He said the government would explain how it believed the increases could be achieved, adding that national security had to remain a central priority.

The announcement followed criticism from opposition politicians and military figures who have demanded greater clarity over the timetable for increasing defence expenditure.

The government had previously indicated that a clearer route towards the longer-term NATO target would be set out at a future spending review. Burnham’s latest comments have therefore raised expectations that the Budget will provide further detail about the funding required.

The issue is particularly sensitive because Healey previously resigned as defence secretary after a dispute over the pace and extent of military funding under the previous administration.

His appointment as Chancellor was viewed as significant because of his long-standing support for increasing defence expenditure.

Now, as the person responsible for the public finances, Healey must demonstrate how the government can deliver those commitments without creating further instability in the national budget. <Cite refs={[“turn167646search0″,”turn167646news6”]} />

Britain Faces a Significant Financial Challenge

Increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP would require a substantial rise in the resources allocated to the military.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that reaching the 3% target would require an additional £17.3 billion in the 2029–30 financial year.

That figure illustrates the scale of the challenge facing the Treasury. The government must find a way to fund the increase while also paying for public services, meeting existing spending commitments and maintaining confidence in Britain’s economic management.

Defence spending includes much more than salaries for military personnel. It covers equipment, ammunition, training, infrastructure, research, military readiness and the maintenance of existing capabilities.

Britain also faces expensive long-term commitments involving nuclear deterrence, naval forces, aircraft, land equipment and support for allies.

If spending increases are not accompanied by a credible procurement and investment strategy, additional money may not translate immediately into stronger military capability.

For that reason, defence specialists have argued that the government needs to provide a clear timetable showing how funding will rise and how the money will be used.

The central question is no longer simply whether ministers support higher defence spending. It is whether they can explain how the commitments will be financed and delivered.

Why NATO’s Spending Targets Matter

NATO members have agreed to increase their defence and security expenditure in response to a more challenging international environment.

The commitment includes a target of 3.5% of GDP for core defence requirements by 2035, alongside an additional 1.5% for broader security-related spending.

These categories are intended to reflect different aspects of national security, although they should not be treated as identical measures of military expenditure.

For Britain, the proposed increase to 3% by 2030 represents an important intermediate milestone on the way to the longer-term commitment.

The government has argued that its approach must be financially sustainable, but critics believe that delaying clarity could weaken confidence among allies and the defence industry.

Military planning requires long lead times. Building ships, producing advanced equipment, recruiting specialists and expanding industrial capacity cannot be completed overnight.

Companies need confidence that orders will be supported by long-term funding before investing in factories, workers and production facilities.

The armed forces also need predictable budgets to plan training, equipment upgrades and future operations.

A clearly funded timetable could therefore help Britain demonstrate that its commitments are more than political promises.

Opposition Demands Greater Urgency

The defence spending announcement is likely to intensify the political debate over Britain’s military readiness.

Conservative politicians have criticised the government over uncertainty surrounding the 2030 target. They argue that Britain faces immediate security risks and cannot afford to postpone difficult decisions.

Opposition figures have also questioned how Burnham intends to reach the spending targets without making difficult choices elsewhere in the public budget.

The government, meanwhile, has defended its record by pointing to increases already included in its defence investment plans.

In September, ministers told Parliament that the defence investment plan had increased planned spending by £15 billion compared with the previous spending review agreement. The Ministry of Defence also said its budget was expected to rise in real terms over the coming years. <Cite refs={[“turn167646search3″,”turn167646search4”]} />

Nevertheless, critics argue that an increase in overall expenditure does not automatically resolve the question of whether the government is moving quickly enough towards its stated objectives.

The debate is likely to focus on the difference between announcing higher spending and demonstrating a fully financed route to the targets.

For Burnham, the challenge will be to convince Parliament, military leaders and the public that the government’s plans are both ambitious and realistic.

The Difficult Question of Welfare Spending

Defence funding has also become connected to the wider argument over welfare spending.

Burnham has insisted that national security must not come at the expense of social security. He has rejected calls for what he describes as crude reductions in welfare expenditure, arguing that poorly designed cuts could create further hardship and increase costs elsewhere.

Instead, he has proposed a different approach that would provide support to young people earlier and help them remain in employment or training.

The government believes that helping more people into stable work could support public finances over the long term while reducing the need for some forms of welfare assistance.

However, critics argue that the Treasury cannot meet every spending commitment without making difficult decisions about taxation, borrowing or public expenditure.

The government must balance defence, healthcare, housing, pensions, education and other essential services against the limits imposed by its fiscal rules.

That makes the defence spending roadmap particularly important. Ministers need to show not only how much money will be required, but also how the government intends to pay for it.

Any proposal to reduce welfare expenditure could face resistance from Labour MPs concerned about the effects on low-income households. Equally, failing to provide adequate funding for defence could create political difficulties for a government that has promised to strengthen national security.

Defence Industry Awaits Clear Commitments

Britain’s defence industry will be watching the Budget closely for signs that planned increases in expenditure will translate into reliable orders.

Manufacturers and suppliers need long-term certainty before expanding production capacity or recruiting additional workers.

A sustained increase in defence investment could support employment in shipbuilding, aerospace, engineering, electronics and advanced manufacturing.

It could also create opportunities for apprenticeships and specialist training, particularly in areas with established defence industries.

However, these benefits depend on how the government allocates its funding. Money must be directed towards projects that strengthen military capability, improve readiness and deliver equipment within realistic timescales.

Defence procurement has frequently faced challenges involving delays, rising costs and changes in requirements. A larger budget will not automatically eliminate those problems.

Ministers will therefore need to explain how the government intends to improve procurement decisions and ensure that additional expenditure delivers practical results.

The defence industry is looking for evidence of a stable plan rather than a series of short-term announcements.

Rising Security Concerns Add Pressure

The government’s spending pledge comes amid continuing concerns about Russia’s military activities and the wider security environment in Europe.

Britain has played a significant role in supporting Ukraine and working with NATO allies to strengthen deterrence. These commitments require equipment, trained personnel and the ability to sustain military operations over time.

The government must also consider threats to critical infrastructure, cyber security and the protection of important maritime routes.

Modern defence planning increasingly involves coordination between conventional military forces, intelligence services, cyber specialists and civilian infrastructure providers.

These demands place pressure on defence budgets because national security depends on a broad range of capabilities rather than a single category of military equipment.

Supporters of higher spending argue that investment now can help prevent weaknesses from emerging at a moment of crisis.

Others warn that spending decisions must be carefully targeted to avoid committing large sums without clearly defined objectives.

The Budget will need to address both concerns by setting out a credible financial direction and explaining how resources will improve Britain’s security.

Can Burnham Deliver on His Promise?

Burnham’s commitment to a 2030 defence spending target creates a clear expectation for his government.

The Budget is an opportunity to demonstrate that ministers have moved beyond broad assurances and developed a practical plan for meeting their obligations.

However, the precise details will matter. Parliament and the public will want to know how spending is expected to increase, which programmes will receive additional resources and how the government will manage competing demands on public finances.

The estimated £17.3 billion additional requirement for 2029–30 illustrates why the question cannot be separated from the wider economic outlook.

If the government provides a credible funding path, it could reassure military leaders and industry that Britain intends to meet its commitments.

If important details remain unclear, opposition parties may argue that the government has failed to match its rhetoric with action.

For Healey, the Budget also represents a test of his ability to reconcile two responsibilities: maintaining economic stability and providing the armed forces with the resources they need.

A Defining Moment for Defence Policy

The announcement that the Budget will outline a path towards higher defence spending marks an important moment for Burnham’s administration.

The government has promised to reach 3% of GDP by 2030 and meet NATO’s longer-term commitment of 3.5% by 2035. Delivering those targets will require substantial resources, careful planning and difficult decisions about national priorities.

The challenge extends beyond meeting a percentage of national income. Britain must ensure that additional funding produces better-equipped forces, stronger readiness and a defence industry capable of supporting the country’s long-term security needs.

At the same time, ministers must protect the wider public services on which millions of people depend.

The Budget will provide an important indication of how Burnham and Healey intend to navigate those competing responsibilities.

Ultimately, the government’s credibility will depend on whether it can turn its promises into a funded, transparent and achievable plan.

For Britain’s armed forces and its NATO allies, the most important question is whether the proposed roadmap delivers the resources required on time. For the government, the challenge is to prove that national security can be strengthened without undermining the country’s wider economic and social priorities.