National Security Cannot Be an Afterthought

There was a moment at Prime Minister’s Questions recently that I found genuinely troubling.

Andy Burnham was challenged over defence spending and the need to strengthen Britain’s national security.

His response was that the Government would support national security, but it could not come at the expense of social security.

Of course social security matters.

But I question the premise that these should be presented as competing forms of security.

Because without national security, what exactly are we securing?

We are living through the most dangerous period in Europe for generations. Russia’s war against Ukraine has fundamentally changed the security environment. We face threats not only from conventional warfare, but from cyber-attacks, hostile states, attacks on critical infrastructure and increasing pressure on the alliances on which Britain has depended for decades.

The Government’s own Strategic Defence Review recognises the scale of that change.

So this is not an argument about whether we care about people who need support. We absolutely should.

It is an argument about the first responsibility of government: keeping the country and its people safe.

A secure society needs strong public services. It needs an effective social security system. But it also needs armed forces capable of defending the country when deterrence fails.

And that requires money.

Which brings me to a rather extraordinary question.

What changed?

In June, John Healey resigned as Defence Secretary because he believed the Government was not providing the resources that Britain’s defence required at a time of rising threats.

His resignation letter was remarkably clear. He said that the Prime Minister had been unable, and the Treasury unwilling, to commit the resources needed to defend the country. He warned that the funding settlement would reduce the readiness of our Armed Forces and increase the risk to personnel.

That was not the resignation of a minister who thought defence was a secondary issue.

Yet only weeks later, Andy Burnham appointed John Healey as his Chancellor of the Exchequer — the very minister responsible for the Government’s finances.

Burnham said he appointed him because of his “strong commitment to the defence of this nation.”

So I have a simple question:

If John Healey was right to resign because defence was not being funded adequately, why is the same urgency not reflected in the Government’s approach now?

The Prime Minister says the Government will reach 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035.

But threats do not arrive according to a Treasury timetable.

And John Healey himself argued that Britain should reach 3% by 2030 — not because 2030 was an arbitrary political target, but because of the deteriorating security environment facing the country.

This is where I believe the Conservative argument must be made clearly.

Defence is not a luxury. It is not an optional extra. And it cannot always be the first place governments look when difficult financial choices have to be made.

We should absolutely debate how much government spends, where that money comes from and how effectively it is used.

But we should also be honest about the world we now inhabit.

If we want Britain to remain a prosperous, free and secure democracy, we need the capability to defend it.

That means properly equipped Armed Forces.

It means credible deterrence.

It means supporting our NATO commitments.

And it means recognising that the cost of failing to prepare can be vastly greater than the cost of preparing properly.

Social security protects people from hardship. National security protects the country in which those people live.

We need both.

But when the world becomes more dangerous, pretending that strengthening our defences is simply a choice between guns and welfare is not responsible government.

It is a false choice.

A government’s first duty is to keep its people safe.

Everything else depends upon it.