Debates between Chris Coghlan and Dan Jarvis during the 2024 Parliament

Defence Investment Plan

Debate between Chris Coghlan and Dan Jarvis
Tuesday 30th June 2026

(1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we have launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth. That provides part of the answer to his question, but I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry has listened carefully to the points he has made and will want to engage with him further on them.

Chris Coghlan Portrait Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Some 80% of US and UK historical war borrowing has been repaid not through debt repayments but through economic growth. Draghi has urged the EU to borrow for defence R&D to increase economic growth and repay debt. Does the Prime Minister’s statement this morning ruling out extra borrowing for defence risk not only our national defence but our economy, too?

Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.