Defence Investment Plan

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

It is important to understand, as I know the hon. Member does, the symbiotic relationship between national security and economic growth. This Government have been incredibly keen to ensure that we can make progress on both those areas. There is an obvious clear connection between the two, but our strong sense is that it would be deeply irresponsible to bring forward measures for which we could not evidence how we would pay for them. All the items that we have brought forward in the defence investment plan are underpinned by resource, and we can point to where that money will come from. We think that that is the responsible way to proceed. That is why there is clarity on the next spending review being the appropriate fiscal moment to make a contribution that will get us to the trajectory of 3% and then 3.5%. The easier option would be to make commitments for which we could not evidence how we will pay for them. That would provide perhaps some short-term sugar rush, but it would not be the right way to proceed. That is why I have come to the House to say that, yes, we will honour the commitments that we have made to NATO allies about the trajectory to 3.5%, but that the appropriate way to do so is in the context of the next spending review and not in this defence investment plan.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

As the UK trade envoy to Italy, I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the GCAP funding in his statement. As MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I add my voice to those who want to see this as an opportunity to genuinely spread investment and opportunity that will build strength and resilience in our people right across the UK—they are our greatest sovereign asset. The north-east currently receives £70 of MOD funding per person—less than a tenth of the figure for other parts of the UK. That is a wasted opportunity and one that we must grasp to ensure that we genuinely build resilience. I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend how we can work together to pull that investment up to our region as a test bed for it reaching the whole of the UK.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does with Italy, which is a key ally, and I am grateful for her welcome for the announcement of the commitment to GCAP, which was signed recently by the Prime Minister. Her second point is absolutely right—she should challenge us and hold us to account on that. She will have heard the response I gave to her relatively near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), just a few moments ago. I look forward to working with them both on that particular matter.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis]

I do, and furthermore there is a real opportunity to place these resources in town halls and in mayoral combined authorities—in people who have their own democratic mandate to take decisions and allocate the resources in the most effective and efficient way.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He will know that, apart from Cornwall, the north-east and the Tees Valley are the areas that have received the most funding from the European regional development fund and social fund. He will also know that by the Government’s own economic analysis, those areas are also set to suffer most from the impact of any Brexit outcome, however delivered. Is it not incumbent upon the Government to take this opportunity not only to match up to the promises that have been made on that funding, regardless of our departure from the European Union, but to do that in a fair and properly targeted way, so that it gets to the areas that need it most—the areas suffering from poverty and low living standards—regardless of our patchwork of local devolution?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; she makes a powerful point. This is a big opportunity for this Government and the next Government to invest money in our regional economies. I said at the outset that I hoped we would see this debate through the eyes of our communities and what is in their best interest, not through the prism of party politics. There will be a range of different views about Brexit and what it may or may not mean for our country, but I hope there is a unanimity of view on wanting to do the best for our country, whatever happens. We want to invest money wisely and effectively in the regions and nations of our country. If we are serious about doing that, the shared prosperity fund is an incredibly important element and ingredient in it, but we have to design it in the right way. We have to get the criteria right. We have to make sure that the formula in place is agreed by the regions and nations. That is why we need to get on with the consultation and make some progress.

Regional Transport Infrastructure

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered investment in regional transport infrastructure.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I declare an interest as Mayor of the Sheffield city region and as a board member of Transport for the North.

This debate comes at a critical moment in our country’s history and for Britain’s regions. While the debate is about investment in our regional transport infrastructure, it is also about fairness and equality of opportunity for all parts of our country, because getting the right transport infrastructure in place will determine the ability of different parts of the country to contribute to national prosperity, as we face the future. If we believe in social mobility, we must ensure practical mobility, so that people can move around to access opportunities. Connecting people with the places that they need to go to is critical if we are to connect our nation’s most talented people with the opportunities that will enable them to reach their potential.

Our country finds itself at a crossroads. We must not lose sight of the fact that in 2016 a huge number of citizens participated in one of the most important democratic exercises in our recent history: they voted for Britain to leave the European Union. I do not claim to hold all the answers as to why they did that—none of us should—because there is no overarching or unifying theory that can explain the Brexit vote. The referendum campaign became about immigration, national sovereignty, our international relationships and trade, but it was also about how well our democracy and our politics had responded to the challenges and concerns that people face in their daily and working lives.

The answer that we got was that the status quo was simply not delivering for many parts of our country, and that people wanted change. That is entirely understandable, because in places like Barnsley, which I represent, and south Yorkshire, there is an overwhelming sense of frustration that for too long the decisions made by successive Governments have not gone nearly far enough to match the aspirations and expectations of residents, and neither have they addressed the long-term structural barriers that have held communities back from reaching their potential. Alongside that is an increasing concern that for too long Britain’s regions and nations, outside London and the south-east, have not seen their fair share of investment.

I emphasise the phrase “Britain’s regions”, which I am always careful to use, because it is not about the north versus the south. Communities in the south-west, the midlands, the east of England, the north-east and the north-west, and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are as relevant to this debate as the communities in Yorkshire that I am proud to represent. This is not about north versus south—in fact, when it comes to transport infrastructure, the divide is often more east-west than north-south—but about the fact that city-led development has meant that growth has not been inclusive for those living outside the reach of cities.

The ink-spot approach to regional development has failed to serve many of our people and our economy. Our economic strategy has been too city-centric and dependent on the hope that wealth will trickle down and ripple out.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I appreciate that it is about the way that we invest, as much as where we invest. Does he agree that some of the expensive national infrastructure investment that has taken place risks alienating areas that are not regionally connected to that investment, no matter where they are in the country? For example, with HS2 there is no confirmation from the Government that the line north of York will be upgraded, which will make parts of the north even further away from that national infrastructure investment, rather than benefiting from HS2.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If this Government—or any Government—want to be taken seriously about investing in infrastructure that will benefit all parts of the country, it is absolutely right that they take into account the important and reasonable point that she makes.