UK-US Bilateral Relationship

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

14:30

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK-US bilateral relationship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your tutelage, Sir John, and let me introduce you to a fine Scots word: fankle. It means a tangle, or a confusion. President Donald Trump knows what it means, because his mother was a Scot from the Isle of Lewis, and the White House team know one when they see one. And they see one right here in Britain, as our foreign policy is disjointed, dysfunctional and callow.

The White House has fired the first shots in a trade war, with tariffs and the threat of tariffs shaping policy. The EU is under this sword of Damocles, but we could avoid the sort of damage to key exports, such as Scotch whisky, that we saw when Mr Trump was last atop Pennsylvania Avenue.

Overall, the UK enjoys a balanced scorecard on trade with the US, although our preponderance of services over goods could yet make us a target. Should we side with the EU? The UK exported £179 billion-worth of goods and services to the US in 2023 and we imported £112 billion-worth of US goods. Looking at individual countries, the US is by far our largest export market; Germany is a distant second, with an export market about a third the size of America’s.

In today’s world, America innovates, China imitates, Europe regulates and Britain prevaricates. Just as President Trump is freeing US industry from its shackles, here Labour is imposing more taxes, more red tape and self-harming nonsense such as the ruinous Employment Rights Bill—the union barons’ charter. Labour wants to offshore decision making to courts, to outsourced and unelected lawyers, and to take dictation from the EU. And they want to force through the Chagos fiasco, Britain’s biggest capitulation since Singapore in 1942—although we did at least fire some shots 83 years ago.

Can the Minister offer some reassurance today that instead Britain will get off its knees, use the freedoms of Brexit, and stride confidently and boldly into the world, striking our own deals? The Russian bear is scratching at our back door, we feel the hot breath of the Chinese dragon on our neck and under President Trump the American eagle is starting to spread its wings.

Among all that, which way to turn, for our Foreign Secretary seems like a cork in a raging sea? Labour’s instincts in time of trouble are to run for the skirts of nanny Europe, but Europe is fading, with sclerotic growth amid political turmoil. Its two great powers, France and Germany, are rudderless and drifting. And although Labour would have us believe that it is resetting relations with the EU, the reality is that our position is pathetic.

The Prime Minister cannot say what he wants from Europe, while they have their invoice already made out; they want a youth mobility scheme that would put yet more pressure on our own children who are seeking their first job. And Europe has avaricious eyes on that old sacrificial lamb—fish from our pristine waters—and to hell with British coastal communities who rely upon the sea’s bounty.

Also, we are cosying up to China. The Chancellor is fresh back from “Operation Kowtow” with a few cheap baubles, despite China’s anti-competitive trade practices, even as the diggers move to build Beijing’s London embassy astride critical data cables. We risk feeding the dragon that one day may immolate us.

What then of the United States, which for so long has been our ally under the umbrella of the much-vaunted “special relationship”? Surely the choice is obvious, yet it would mean Labour dealing with a man that it dispatched activists to defeat in the US election. He is, to quote that master diplomat the Foreign Secretary,

“a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath. A tyrant in a toupee.”

I will also quote Labour’s choice of ambassador to Washington DC, who called the returning President a “bully”, “reckless” and a “danger to the world.” The Damascene conversion that our diplomats have lately undergone means that Mr Trump is now “a nice man”. And as for KKK jibes? Apparently, they are “old news” that will matter not a jot on Capitol Hill. However, they neither forgive nor forget; the die is cast. What is said cannot be unsaid by fawning. And although the Foreign Secretary boasts of having a meal with the President, perhaps the Minister who is here today could confirm both how little access the Foreign Secretary had to the President and just how massive the humble pie was that he was forced to pretend he enjoyed.

Huge though those problems are, they are nothing compared with the Chagos deal, which will see us cede the strategic joint UK-US Diego Garcia base to distant Mauritius and pay billions to lease it back. We saw the unseemly haste with which Labour wanted to push that deal through, in the face of warnings that Mauritius was moving ever closer to both expansive China and malign Iran.

Now the Foreign Secretary is moving at pace again, scuttling to try to explain to Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the deal is just the job to see off a legal opinion—not a decision—that there might be an issue with the Chagos islands and Diego Garcia in particular. Yes, negotiations were begun by the previous Government but we did not conclude them. We would certainly not have considered the ludicrous terms on offer, where we take something of ours, give it away and then pay through the nose to borrow it back.

The Americans already see what this is: a supine Britain, afraid of a possible legal setback, falling over itself to avoid offending a foreign Government. It is nothing short of a national humiliation. We have a Labour Government frightened of their own shadow, happier to be soft-touch law takers not lawmakers, who would have this sovereign Parliament infantilised and push around by bewigged silks and the Brussels secretariat.

This Government are more worried about the price of Oasis tickets than the cost of making our elected representatives subservient to quangos and arm’s length bodies, and now to the National Assembly in Port Louis, Mauritius, which is further from Diego Garcia than London is from Rome. Aboard his luxury jet—he seems more interested in a Gulfstream G700 than the G7 countries—whisking him to the US, the Foreign Secretary might consider a quote from Mr Rubio:

“Compromise that’s not a solution is a waste of time.”

Against that sort of clear thinking, our toadying diplomats look like battery toys plugged into the mains: out of their depth, out of touch, out of control. China knows the true value of bases such as Diego Garcia. It is even building artificial islands—the great wall of sand—in the South China sea as unsinkable aircraft carriers. The US will rightly torpedo Labour’s woeful Chagos sell-out.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. Does he agree that, despite the best efforts of the Labour Government, there is a long-standing and enduring relationship between the USA, Scotland and the rest of the UK? More importantly from our perspective as Scottish MPs, Tartan Week in New York is a good example of that strong relationship between the US and Scotland.

[John Cooper]

I agree completely. I was privileged to join my hon. Friend at Tartan Week in America, which is a key showcase for all things Scottish. We are lucky that President Trump is effectively an Ayrshire businessman, since he owns a golf course in Scotland.

If the Chagos deal were in effect vetoed by America, would our Foreign Secretary dare continue, in the event of such mortification? What price Downing Street’s hostage-to-fortune claim that the Foreign Secretary will still be in post at the next election? If their 3-amp fuses do not blow too soon, perhaps our underpowered team might get to discuss defence with America. The US wants NATO to pull its budgetary weight. Might we hear today where Labour are with plans to lift defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, given the first casualty of their mishandling of the economy has been growth? Will it happen, and when?

If we are moving ever closer to faceless and distant Strasbourg and Brussels, as yesterday’s visit by the PM surely signposts, we ought to consider Ireland, which sums up America’s issue with European freeloading on defence. Ireland is not in NATO, yet is under the aegis of the British-supplied nuclear deterrent. The undersea cables that see US tax dollars converted to euros and piled into the coffers of Dublin are at risk from Putin’s shadow fleet.

Those data cables are as critical today as were the convoys from America and Canada during the battle of the Atlantic, and every bit as vulnerable. The country’s only defence, since Ireland has zero underwater capability, is Britain—the same Britain Ireland is happy to traduce in international courts over the troubles. We have a rare window of opportunity with Mr Trump and his White House team, but the puerile insults keep coming. The titanic struggle playing out now is between the oldest superpower, the United States, and the newest, China. Europe, prickling with full outrage at the new US President, is sidelined. It is, at best, indifferent to the UK and wants to make even new defence agreements transactional, all about commercial deals, even as the fires of conflict blaze. China need not be our enemy, but it is not our friend. Its industrial heft means genuine competition in many areas is impossible. Its annual production of batteries is sufficient for global needs—no wonder UK plans for a gigafactory have come to nothing.

We must seek every advantage we can, and the US offers the most fertile ground. We speak the same language, George Bernard Shaw’s adage that we are two nations separated by a common language notwithstanding. The late unpleasantness of the American revolution is in the rear-view mirror. We have a shared history of standing for liberty, and our transatlantic co-operation on defence is unmatched. US forces are the big stick; they see ours as a precision scalpel.

Labour does not lack for numbers in this Parliament. Is there no one in their serried ranks who can see that an anglophile US President, a man of immense pragmatism, offers us a chance to form a mutually beneficial relationship and perhaps a full trade deal—or are they the new model terracotta army, which looks impressive from a distance, but which sits mute, eyes painted on, as their leaders tread the same old worn and fruitless path to Brussels and show a bit of ankle to China? Enough of Oliver Twist: “Please Mr Xi and Ms von der Leyen, may we have some more?”

In 1942, Prime Minister Winston Churchill boarded a flying boat on Loch Ryan in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency, destination the United States. His message then was,

“let us go forward together”. —[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]

We should deliver the same message to Washington today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. First, I will call Members who bob, so please could those who wish to be called make sure to bob? Secondly, I remind Members that they should be here for the start of a debate if they want to contribute, but I will try to be generous. Thirdly, so that all who want to can speak, let us try to work on the basis of about four minutes each. That is informal at this stage, but as we continue, we will look at it again.

14:42

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for calling this debate on the UK-US bilateral relationship. I listened closely to his speech and we agree on the importance of the UK-US relationship and our desire to build on those bonds.

Britain’s place in the world matters. After the needless fights and petty politicking of the last Government, which did so much damage to our relationships around the world, I am proud that our Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made reconnecting with our allies a priority of this Government. After the furore of the Northern Ireland protocol, the collapse of US-UK trade talks, and strains following Brexit, I am glad that we now have a Government who are ready to put the national interest, rather than party interests, first.

It was Winston Churchill who first described the UK-US relationship as “special”. For centuries, the relationship between our two nations has been one of collaboration, co-operation and enduring partnership. Together, we have defended the world from tyranny and two world wars, stood strong in the cold war, and for centuries worked closely towards our mutual security and prosperity. I put on record my congratulations to President Trump on his inauguration, and we look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

As the Prime Minister has said, we will continue to build upon the unshakeable foundations of our transatlantic alliance as we tackle the global challenges together. We have our shared language, close cultural exchange, strong ties in commerce, and the many links between our peoples through business, friendships and family. Indeed, President Trump’s mother was Scottish and I know he has always been very fond of our country. I am sure that the depth of friendship will continue.

The Prime Minister had a warm and constructive conversation with President Trump the other week, during which they discussed the economy. President Trump stated that they “get along well” and that the Prime Minister is doing a “good job”.

There has been a lot of noise around our relationship with the United States and the new Administration, much of it coming from the Opposition Benches. There have been, as there always will be, things that we disagree on. We clearly did not agree with Elon Musk’s outlandish attacks on members of the Government, but differences on single matters of policy do not diminish the deep and enduring relationship between us and the United States. I dare say that the previous Government disagreed with the Biden Administration on many things.

I regret to note that the Opposition really seem to be getting carried away, with Members seeming to suggest that the Government must choose between our relationship with the EU and our relationship with the United States. Last week, the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), suggested that improving our relationship with both the EU and the US was akin to an attempt at

“making love simultaneously to a rhino and a sloth.”

Leaving aside why anyone would want to do either of those things, is it not exactly that destructive attitude that has caused so much damage to British businesses and UK trade over the past 14 years?

In these dangerous times, the idea that we must choose between our allies—that somehow we are either with America or with Europe—is wrong. Last year, the UK’s total trade in goods and services with the United States was £294 billion, and with the EU it was £822 billion. Our co-ordination with the United States on defence, security and foreign policy is indispensable, as is our co-ordination with Europe, our closest neighbours. Attlee did not choose between allies, nor did Churchill. The national interest requires that we work with both the EU and the US.

In the years ahead, the UK will again stand tall on the world stage. This Government’s commitment to international law, their commitment to growing our economy and free trade, and their work navigating the new, more challenging multipolar era are all worthy of Opposition Members’ serious engagement, not party political sniping. Our shared history with the United States, our close security and defence partnerships and our economic ties matter more than words. This Government will continue to invest in the transatlantic relationship in the years to come.

14:46

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I serve in the British-American Parliamentary Group. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this important debate.

As President George H. W. Bush once said,

“America has no truer friend than Great Britain.”

That sentiment has been repeated time and again but, sadly, we now have a Government seemingly intent on weakening that vital bond. We have a Foreign Secretary who, without hesitation, labelled the leader of the free world a

“racist and KKK/neo-Nazi sympathiser”;

a Health Secretary who referred to him as an “odious…little man”; and, perhaps most concerning of all, a Prime Minister who accused the leader of the free world of an “attack on democracy”—a far cry from leadership figures such as Churchill, Thatcher and even Blair, who understood the value of forging strong and meaningful relations with our closest ally.

Unfortunately, it is not just the Government’s words of woke condemnation that are cause for concern, but their actions. The Trump Administration have unequivocally expressed their concerns about the Foreign Secretary’s reckless proposal to cede sovereignty over the strategically vital Chagos islands to Mauritius. Yet the Foreign Secretary pressed ahead, attempting to finalise the deal before President Trump officially took office. That pattern of misguided priorities and dangerous diplomacy cannot be ignored. Do the Government believe that the special relationship no longer matters?

Prime Minister after Prime Minister and President after President have been steadfast in their commitment to that enduring relationship. Why? Because both sides recognise that our trade is worth more than £300 billion, with 1.2 million Americans working in British companies and 1.5 million British citizens working for American firms. The UK imports around £58 billion in goods from the US and exports £60.4 billion in return. Our Chancellor has stated that she is focused on growth, so surely consolidating and strengthening those economic ties must be a top priority? The previous Government were in talks with President Trump about a post-Brexit deal that would have seen trade increase by potentially

“three to four, five times”.

It is deeply concerning that some Members on the Government Benches and all those on the Liberal Democrat Benches seem intent on undermining the biggest democratic decision this country has ever made: our decision to leave the European Union. Rejoining the EU customs union would not only be undemocratic, but would damage our special relationship with American businesses and prevent us from fostering our own independent trade deals.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway recognised, President Trump is an Anglophile. He has property in Scotland and a deep sentimental connection to British culture and the royal family. It would be regrettable to see that bond undermined by a Government determined to placate the cultural left at every opportunity. It is therefore essential that the Government invite President Trump over for a state visit at the earliest opportunity. That would send a powerful message to the world that the special relationship between our two great nations is as strong as ever.

The Government must stop playing politics with our national interest. The United States is and always will be our greatest ally. We share a history, a culture and, most importantly, a vision for how the world should be. The Government must act now to secure our future and preserve the special relationship for generations to come.

14:50

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this debate, and I look forward to visiting his constituency in a couple of weeks for a short holiday during recess.

Like the UK, the USA recently voted for decisive change. I heartily congratulate President Trump on his election. People here in the UK and across the Atlantic have been feeling the impact of low economic growth, with a decline in productivity and GDP per capita for many years. From Mansfield, Massachusetts to my constituency of Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, people are feeling the impact in their pockets. They know how tough things are out there for their families. The recent changes in both Governments are clearly a response to the frustration felt by both electorates, and it is therefore in both our countries’ interests to work together to deal with the issue.

Despite many attempts to highlight the differences between the two Administrations, we have a great deal in common. Both Governments have made much of their agenda for growth: the US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said that an increase in GDP should be seen as a key performance indicator of the Trump presidency, while here at home my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also made it clear that economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, a message reiterated through announcements in the past week. We all understand that, primarily, a Government must ensure the economic security of the electorate and give them confidence that they will be better off. However, to earn the right even to be heard on the crucial issue of the economy, parties—in opposition or in government—must prove beyond doubt that they can also ensure the safety and security of the nation.

Here in the UK we have been steadily increasing our defence spending as a share of GDP over the last 10 years. It is currently at just over 2.3%, higher than the NATO target and higher than most other NATO countries. The new Administration in the United States want NATO allies to do more, and I agree that we must. We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and it is right that we and our European allies are asked to do, and do, more. Only yesterday the Prime Minister was in Brussels urging our European neighbours to spend more on defence and to step up and shoulder more of the burden.

We underestimate the threat of Vladimir Putin and Russia at our peril. The Government must go further, with an aspiration to spend 2.5% and beyond on defence as soon as possible. That alignment of priorities should be seen as an opportunity for us here in the UK. It is an opportunity for the UK to be the bridge between US and our European neighbours and, most importantly, NATO. We can take the case to the United States by jointly demonstrating our unshakable commitment to the alliance through our contributions to defence spending. Britain must take the lead on that agenda.

As a former chief executive officer in the United States and as someone who spent many years there in Massachusetts and California, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to work more closely with the new US Administration. The special relationship is paramount to the international diplomatic network. Both Administrations share a renewed confidence from their electorate based upon the common agendas that I have outlined, and it is on those agendas that we must build a much stronger relationship with the United States going forward.

14:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for raising this topic at such a timely moment, as we look to the start of the new US Administration.

The new Administration offers an opportunity for greater UK-US relations, which is something we should jump at. Although I have not always been the greatest supporter of the Donald Trump portrayed in the media, I certainly admire some of the steps already taken by the Administration. I am pleased to have a presidency that seems to have a grasp of the special relationship with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that we should treasure. We have moved from a former President who called us Brits—that was meant as a slur, by the way—and promised that no orange feet would ever be in the White House, so I could never have gone because I am an Orangeman. He had a very clear, biased opinion. We now have President Trump—a man who treasures his Ulster Scots roots and has the respect for our monarchy that we all hold. What a difference a year makes.

I was heartened to hear the interview in which the President highlighted massive concerns with the EU, which many of us share, yet he indicated his belief that the relationship with the UK could be retained. There is a real possibility of the friendship between our nations being restored to what it once was, which can only benefit us on both sides of the ocean.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be utterly outrageous if the benefits of any trade deal with the US were not felt equally in Northern Ireland—an integral part of the United Kingdom—because of the protocol? Does he agree that this Labour Government need to take action and remove the Irish sea border, so that Northern Ireland can benefit from any trade deal done with the US?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She stands alongside the rest of us in relation to this issue.

I am further encouraged that Vice-President J. D. Vance has close Ulster Scots roots that have shaped him. Now is the time to highlight the fact that so much good in America has a foundation in our shared Ulster Scots values of hard work, courage, family, commitment and fairness. There are multiple large businesses in my constituency, such as Rich Sauces and Lakeland Dairies, that have a great business co-operation with the United States of America. There is so much space for greater investment and economic improvement for both Northern Ireland and the US.

The US and Canada are two of Northern Ireland’s important markets both for exports and inward investment, with over 320 North American firms choosing to establish themselves there—that is the relationship that we have. In the 12 months leading up to March 2024, exports to those markets reached £2.3 billion, highlighting the wealth of opportunities available for local companies. We have a new opportunity, under a new Administration, to make new conditions and make Northern Ireland even greater and bigger within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Many Americans have their roots in what is now Northern Ireland and in Scotland. Their Scots Irish or Ulster Scots roots are something to be proud of, and I believe that we can and should build on those links to bring greater cultural tourism to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly will work on that as well, but there is more to be done. We are a place of peace and open for business, and that needs to be highlighted not simply by the Northern Ireland Executive, but by this Parliament and in this debate.

I will finish with this point, because I am conscious of the numbers who want to speak and the time limit. Donald Trump is a businessman of action, and he responds to that. His Administration have been working hard since day one to bring about change, so let us ensure that greater friendship and business co-operation with the United Kingdom, particularly with Northern Ireland, is brought to his attention and acted upon as a matter of urgency, not left to linger in the ether—to use an Ulster Scotsism. The time to act is now, so let us get going and improve our mutually beneficial relationship.

I look forward to the Minister’s response; he always tries to give us the answers that we request. I also look forward to the response from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), a lady of integrity.

14:59

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for bringing such an important subject to this Chamber.

No political party has a monopoly on patriotism, the flag or, certainly, the UK-US relationship. It is a relationship vested in our shared values of democracy, freedom and the international rules-based system. It is based on our shared history of defending and nurturing these values; frequently we have done so by fighting side by side in wars. It is a relationship based on our armed forces co-operating and our intelligence services working closely together in our mutual national interests. Most fundamentally, it is a relationship between two peoples that is based on friendship, exchange and respect.

In that context, I must refer to the words of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, which I felt were hyperbolic and unbecoming of such an important subject. He spoke about “supine Britain” and “national humiliation”, and said our defence was, compared with the United States, merely “a precision scalpel”. That is somewhat hypocritical, given that his party saw our Army shrink to the smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. We on the Labour Benches will not take any lectures on our armed forces from him.

The hon. Member spoke about “toadying diplomats”. I regard that as deeply offensive to the diplomats around the world who work around the clock to look after our national interests and our citizens when they are in peril, doing everything they can to enhance our international relationships. He spoke about Labour Ministers having made comments in the past about President Trump. I merely ask whether he has ever investigated the comments of the former British Prime Minister and Mayor of London regarding President Trump. Referring to the torpedoing of Labour’s policy was also unfortunate and dangerous language.

I will defer to my hon. Friend the Minister on the Government’s bilateral relationship with the USA, but I want to touch on a couple of personal aspects of the relationship. In 2009, 16 years ago, I was fortunate to be invited by the US State Department to take part in an international visitor leadership programme—a three-week visit to the United States. That is an example of the US investing in the bilateral relationship. The rumour is that those who go on the IVLP visits are deemed to be people who may one day have some influence; well, 16 years later, I am an MP, so there must have been something right about that.

[Jim Shannon]

Three Members who are present were in the Northern Ireland Assembly back in the late ’90s and early 2000s, when the United States Government sponsored us to go to America and learn how to govern, so it is not just the hon. Gentleman who benefited from that.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I support all such schemes, which strengthen the relationship between our two countries.

I saw the military co-operation between our two countries in operation in Iraq, when I visited Baghdad in 2005 and 2006 with Prime Minister Blair’s special envoy to Iraq, the late right hon. Ann Clwyd. I also have good friends in the United States, as I am sure we all do. I want to refer to my late friend Michael McCarthy, whom I got to know when we were both studying for master’s degrees—in my case, in international studies—at Durham University in 2001, and in whose memory I established a lecture at my old college at Durham, University College. The lecture raises money for a travel bursary in his name, which allows students who would not otherwise be able to do so to visit the United States during their studies. That is the special relationship in action—investing in the special relationship to develop friendships.

The bilateral relationship is a relationship that transcends party-political boundaries. It is not owned by one party. It should not be exploited for political purposes or political gain, particularly given that the United States and the United Kingdom have so much to gain from it. Indeed, the rest of the free world depends in some ways on a very healthy, strong bilateral relationship between our two great countries.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation. Six Members are standing, and I will call the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, so brevity would be appreciated. Three to four minutes would be brilliant.

15:05

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

When it comes to debating the potential of the special relationship with this incoming Administration, I think I am in a fortunate position. It is not just that for 10 years I have stood up and defended President Trump—I was very much on my own in those days—but that I know half his Cabinet. We should consider ourselves incredibly lucky, because it is not just the President who is an Anglophile, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said. I promise Members that half the Cabinet are; indeed, senior members of the Administration have children at school in London as we speak. We have a unique opportunity over the next four years and I really hope we exploit it.

During his last term as President, Trump said to me personally that he really wanted to do a free trade deal with the United Kingdom. Now, I know he is very keen on tariffs—tariffs are being put on all over the world, and no doubt the EU will feel some of that—but with us he was very happy to have a free trade deal. He felt that it would not be unfair, because we are roughly operating on similar levels and with similar costs. Those opportunities are fantastic.

On defence, we should face the fact that without America we are defenceless, so it matters, but we should think about the bit that we give back. Diego Garcia is probably the single most important thing that we give America right now. Without it, America does not have access to the middle east, India and much else. It is the single most important island in the world for America—after Hawaii, obviously—so it really matters.

We have had news in the last hour that the Government are going to push ahead with the surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, at a reported cost of up to £19 billion—I am sure that cannot be true. I warn the Government that they may not be getting huge pushback from America at this moment in time, because they have a list as long as your arm of other priorities, but once they realise that we do not even have that to give them any more, our value to them in that two-way relationship will be considerably reduced. I genuinely fear that if this continues and the American Administration wakes up to it—I could quote three members of the Cabinet I have spoken to personally about it—our chances of not just avoiding tariffs but moving on to a sectoral free trade deal will all but evaporate. The special relationship will be dangerously fractured if the Government carry on with this, so I urge them to please, please give the American Administration a few weeks to think about this while they settle into office.

I will finish on one quick point about the economics. In 2008, the eurozone economy was exactly the same size as the American economy, but 16 years on the American economy is double the size of the eurozone. We do not have to say, “America not Europe,” or “Europe not America”; the really important thing is to understand where the growth is and where the investment will come from. Whatever new terms we seek with Brussels—if it is just a good relationship, that is fine—we must not tie ourselves to an EU rulebook that prohibits free trade with the USA. Economically, it is the future, and the EU is the past.

15:09

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on his eloquent and passionate speech although, as he would expect, I do not agree with much of what he said.

I am pleased to follow the man whom YouGov called the 31st most famous person in Britain in 2024. I am sure that in 2025 he will be looking to move up the charts as quickly as possible.

When I have thought about what has happened over the past couple of days, my mind has often drifted back to a very wet holiday in Cornwall a couple of years ago, when I read “The Art of the Deal”. If anybody wants to see President Trump’s thinking, they just need to read that book. He says that the worst thing a person can do when he wants to make a deal is to look too desperate, and the most important thing, he says, is to have leverage in that deal. There has been a lot of talk since November about how we want to be friends with President Trump, and a lot of people have taken back what they have said about him, but the truth is that we have to look at the deal and the leverage that we have.

We will always be strategically important to the US. Our relationship has deep roots in defence, security and intelligence, and our armed forces have always fought alongside each other. The United States can access UK intelligence networks in states where it lacks its own. It gets to work through British counterparts in the Commonwealth and many places where we hold more significant historical ties. The UK also gets a good deal; we have great bilateral intelligence-sharing agreements, and UK diplomats in the US have a particularly strong relationship with key policymakers.

My worry going into this debate was that we would make this about personality, and we would start talking about the personality of Donald Trump or the Prime Minister. Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go. In four years’ time, Donald Trump will not be President any more—the US constitution says so. For too long, when we have talked about the special relationship, we have reduced it down to personality. That may go back to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but let us not forget that they fell out over the Falklands when Reagan tried to intervene.

Whether we support Trump or not, and whatever we think of him personally, the fact is that we have to be a critical friend. We cannot blindly obey or expect obedience from each other; that is not how it works. I recall many years ago, when I was working for Lord Touhig, he gave a speech on the UK-US involvement in Iraq. He said then:

“True friends tell each other the truth, no matter how difficult and painful that might be from time to time. It is up to this Government to be honest and plain-speaking with our American friends.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 570.]

He said that the relationship

“must be a true partnership, in which we do not always hitch our wagon to America’s star on foreign and defence policy.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 568.]

This has been done before. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson desperately wanted this country to get involved in the debacle of Vietnam. The national security adviser McGeorge Bundy advised the President:

“We want to make very sure that the British get it into their heads that it makes no sense for us to rescue the pound while there is no British flag in Vietnam.”

Wilson offered Johnson other reassurances—generally those that aligned with his own view on the right course of action, including that British bases at Suez would be maintained—but he did not give in on the matter of Vietnam. I have to say with all candour that I wish we had had the same attitude in the early 2000s when we were approaching the situation in Afghanistan.

Deals will have to be made with America, but we have to remember that whether it be President Trump, Biden or Kennedy, the American President is elected with one aim in mind: to make sure that he gets the best deal for America. Otherwise, what is the point in electing him? It is the same for us in this country. We expect the British Prime Minister to get the best possible deal, but, in an uncertain time, that does not mean that we forgo our principles. We do not have to be selective in our battles. We can make our views clear and remain strong, but our priority must always be this country and putting our priorities first. That is the only way we can continue to make this relationship special.

15:13

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing the debate at this pivotal time. It is typically prescient of him to have done so.

When considering my remarks, my first thought was to try to embarrass the Government by replaying all the disgraceful, disobliging and damaging comments that members of the Labour party have made about America, and particularly about President Trump. It might be fun, I thought, to see Government Members squirm, particularly if I could find some choice comments by the Minister himself. However, having researched the dreadful, embarrassing comments, I cannot in good conscience replay them here.

I am a patriot. I have fought for my country all over the world, often alongside our American cousins and usually with an American as my boss. I served for General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war, on the staff of the superb General David Petraeus in the second Gulf war and under Marine Corps General Richard Mills in the Helmand river valley of Afghanistan. In Sierra Leone, my bacon was well and truly saved by the USS Kearsarge and its embarked port of marines. I cannot replay Labour’s embarrassing catalogue of errors or risk making our relationship with the United States any weaker than it currently is.

Indeed, in my own small way I have been doing my own bit to strengthen Anglo-American relations by employing as my senior parliamentary assistant a no-nonsense native New Yorker from Queens. When Gloria tells me to jump, I do not ask why; I simply ask, “How high?” But my relationship with my parliamentary assistant should never be replicated at a national level. We need to be a strong nation and to conduct our relations from that position of strength.

Of course, much of what we contribute to this relationship we cannot talk about, because it is secret and long may it remain so, but in the public realm it is very clear that the Government are playing for time with their strategic defence review, which is primarily there to produce the political cover for increasing defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. That is a mistake being played out in public. By not having a threat-based and foreign policy-led review, we are missing a huge opportunity to face down the real-world threats that we see today. Everyone in Government seems to have forgotten the old adage: “Prepare for the war you don’t want to have to fight.” The answer, instead, seems to be “2.5% of GDP—now, what’s the question?”

America has a clear-eyed view of its national interest and we should have one of ours. It has been striking to see the speed with which the Trump Administration has hit the ground running. Not for him the interminable list of reviews, taskforces and consultations that our own Government prefer.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the Chagos islands, which our Government propose to give away the sovereignty of, only to lease them back at vast expense for the British taxpayer. That is surely the worst plan since the Prime Minister hired a voice coach. He must rethink the proposed course of action and not simply hope that it never reaches the top of the President’s in-tray. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in that regard. It will reach the top of that in-tray, and this Government will be embarrassed at how cackhandedly this fiasco has been handled. The Government should climb down, and climb down quickly.

In the late 1950s, the French were demanding that all US forces leave French soil and Dean Rusk asked pointedly, “Does that include the dead ones in the military cemeteries?” The UK’s relationship with the US was probably at its lowest ebb following Suez. It has improved since and is strong today. Much of that strength was paid for by the sacrifice of our own troops, serving alongside and indeed for our American cousins. The Government must not squander that inheritance. Instead, they will honour our fallen by making this country stronger and by forging a stronger special relationship with the United States.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Members can see that we have about 11 minutes left for Back-Bench speakers, so let us divide it between the three remaining Back-Bench speakers.

15:18

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this important debate.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly talked about the huge advantages of a trade deal with the US. As a vet who grew up on a farm, I gently point out that not all standards are the same, and we know that in any trade deal the US will be very keen to sell us products such as chlorinated chicken, or beef that has been produced using growth hormones and farming methods that include antibiotics to a higher extent than we would. Not only would such products undermine our environmental and animal welfare standards; they would also put our own farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It is not just vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards; the British public are, too. They do not want those standards to be compromised. I urge the Minister to ensure that in any trade deals our farmers and our animal welfare standards are protected.

The withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation prevents a significant challenge for UK public health, because the US provided about a fifth of the entire WHO budget and its departure creates an immediate funding shortfall. It is not only UK public health that will be affected but global public health. The intent to withdraw from the World Health Organisation will restrict communications from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

These measures are likely to have a significant implication for global and UK public health security. The US plays critical roles in the surveillance of infectious diseases, including giving direct support to develop capacity overseas, monitoring the threat of antibiotic-resistant infectious, and recognising and investigating emerging infectious diseases with pandemic potential. USAID programmes are often heavily involved in ensuring access to vaccines for diseases such as polio, which has almost been eradicated, but while it is present anywhere in the world, is still a threat to the UK.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The UK and the US have long led on humanitarian aid—saving lives and preventing crises. Scrapping USAID abandons that leadership, worsening global instability. International aid fosters security and economic growth, reducing forced migration. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must persuade the US to rethink that decision?

[Dr Chambers]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s insightful comment. In both those scenarios, withdrawal from key agencies will reduce global awareness and increase the chances of future global health crises. World Health Organisation-collaborating centres around the world, including those in the US, directly inform the development of our annual influenza vaccine, which is a vital aspect of reducing a significant pressure on the NHS every winter.

Meanwhile, it is currently unclear how the US stance on wider public health agencies may shift in the future. Just this week, the World Organisation for Animal Health reported the emergence of highly pathogenic H5N9 avian influenza in poultry for the first time in the US. This is an evolving situation for which the Centre for Disease Control would normally provide crucial updates. How orders to cease communications may impact the service remains to be seen.

The UK also invests heavily in supporting capacity building for overseas infectious disease surveillance as part of delivering our own national action and public health plans. I ask the Minister: are there plans to conduct an impact assessment on how the withdrawal of the US from key public health agencies may impact public health security in the UK? Although we totally understand that we cannot replace all that US funding, do the Government envision a requirement or see opportunities for the UK to expand or review its existing programmes to ensure stability of its global public health interests?

For so many people in need around the world, UK and US foreign aid has been the difference between life and death. Whether tackling climate change, pandemics or extreme poverty, the Liberal Democrats believe in global solutions to global problems, and in the importance of international development when building a more peaceful and prosperous world, with the UK leading the way. That is why we are eventually hoping to see our international development budget restored to 0.7% of GDP. Not only will that make the world more stable; it will also make the UK a safer and healthier place to live.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Three minutes each now. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

15:22

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this debate. I put on record my membership of the British-American Parliamentary Group. I also congratulate President Trump on his election and inauguration, and I thank him for his role in bringing about the ceasefire in Gaza.

A truly special and constructive bilateral relationship between the UK and the US is essential. Key elements of such a relationship must be: mutual respect, where both nations respect each other’s sovereignty and decisions by valuing each other’s perspectives and priorities without imposing one’s will on the other; equality, with a balanced partnership where both countries have an equal say in decisions, with collaborative decision making ensuring that both parties benefit fairly from the relationship; shared goals and values, where the relationship is built on common values such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law; and being a critical friend, and having open, transparent and honest communication where both nations are able to express their concerns and opinions freely, fostering an environment of trust and understanding.

Instead, I am afraid to say, the UK-US special relationship is often described as toxic, abusive and destructive, due to several key factors. There is an imbalance of power where the relationship is frequently characterised with the UK as the junior partner. That dynamic has led to the UK being pressured into supporting US policies and actions that do not align with our own national interests or ethical standards. Political manipulation by the US, forcing the UK’s political alignment, has sometimes resulted in catastrophic decisions—for example, the UK’s support for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, based on questionable or fabricated intelligence, which led to significant loss of life and long-term regional instability.

A special relationship is important and essential. However, our country’s best interest is not served by blind subservience in the face of US power. The disasters of failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show only too well where that leads. The failures post 9/11 continue to reverberate decades later, whether in the form of refugees from Afghanistan appearing on our shores or the continued threat of ISIS. I hope that the Government’s failure to challenge US support for Israeli apartheid in the west bank and the genocide in Gaza will not also come back to haunt our country in the years and decades to come.

In conclusion, it is crucial for the UK to assert its sovereignty and pursue an independent path that aligns with international law and its own values, and to be a positive influence on the US.

15:26

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I want to use this debate to try to get an answer to a question that I asked in PMQs a few weeks ago, and to which I did not get an answer. How does the United Kingdom Government hope to obtain a trade deal for the United Kingdom so long as the customs laws, the trade laws and many of the economic laws of a part of this United Kingdom are made not in the United Kingdom by Parliament but by the EU? How, without the unity of a common customs base, a common trade base and common standards affecting the goods that can be imported and exported from our country, do we obtain a trade deal with a third country such as the United States?

If President Trump proceeds with his threatened tariffs on the EU, does that mean they will apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to the EU’s wretched trade laws and tariffs and everything else that goes with it? When and how will the United Kingdom put ourselves in a position where we can obtain a trade deal applicable to all the United Kingdom so long as it persists with the partitioning protocol agreement that divides the United Kingdom and leaves part of it under the control of a foreign power? Or are this Government interested only in a trade deal that would benefit Great Britain? Have they abandoned any interest in a trade deal for the whole United Kingdom? I would like an answer to that question, and I would like the Minister to explain how it is even possible, legally, to obtain a trade deal for the whole United Kingdom so long as this Government do not control the trade laws of the whole United Kingdom.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their brevity. I am determined to ensure that those who want to speak get the opportunity to do so. Thank you for your co-operation this afternoon. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

15:28

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing today’s debate on this important topic. The level of interest shows how important the issue is to our country. Many Members, including the hon. Members for Rugby (John Slinger), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have spoken warmly of how they have benefited from the historical relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.

Let us be in no doubt: the US is a key ally of the UK, and our relationship today is the consequence of close co-operation across many generations. Unfortunately, Donald Trump is not concerned about the preservation of any relationship. He is threatening Denmark and Panama, bullying Canada and Mexico and undermining NATO by praising Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine.

In personal and international relations, the President is unpredictable and disloyal. He breaks laws and he lies. He bullies and intimidates. He does not see the benefit of institutions that foster co-operation and promote stability and peace. That represents a threat to the UK’s relationship with the US and to the UK’s wider interests.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway had some colourful rhetorical flourishes, but they could not mask the brass neck of his remarks, for his Conservative party is in no position to criticise others for selling the UK short in global affairs. From their botched Brexit deal to the rushed trade deals that betrayed British farmers under the last Government, the UK shrank from leadership and stood small on the global stage.

We know that Donald Trump likes to set the news agenda by making outrageous pronouncements. The only thing I agreed with in the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is that we should focus not on the statements but on his deeds. Sadly, even in his first days in office, actions by the new US Administration underscore that we cannot depend on the US in the way that we have in the past. In critical areas, this US Administration have moved far away from the rules-based order that has marked the partnership between the UK and the US over the last 60 or more years.

For example, we have seen Donald Trump sign an executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) set out, we are in an era when the UK and all countries depend on one another for health security. Covid-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome, mpox—these viruses know no borders. International co-operation is critical if we are to protect our citizens. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said we were lucky in the members of the Administration. Since a number of them disregard vaccine science, it is deeply concerning to see the US withdraw from international health co-operation.

Donald Trump has also withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement while encouraging US oil companies to renew extensive drilling operations including in sensitive environmental settings. Recent reports from Copernicus show how rapidly the globe is heating. Climate emergencies from fires in California to extreme rainfall and flooding in Valencia and in the UK show that the impacts are no abstract future threat. This decision by the new Administration sets back hard-won international progress and undermines collective efforts to reduce carbon emissions and protect future generations.

Take, too, the recent announcement of a stop to all USAID funding, alongside the briefing that the Administration wants to wind up USAID entirely. USAID is the world’s largest single aid donor. In 2023, it disbursed $72 billion of aid worldwide. In countries across the globe, UK Aid has worked alongside our US partners to support women and girls, the victims of conflict and those displaced by climate emergencies and natural disasters. The consequences of this unilateral action by the US Administration have been severe. From Ukraine to Syria to Sudan, cuts to US support have put lives at risk while throwing international partnerships into disarray. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester highlighted, USAID cuts threaten progress in eradicating illnesses such as polio once and for all.

We have urged this Government not to abandon Parliament’s historic commitment to provide 0.7% of GNI in overseas aid. Leadership with our international partners on international development is all the more critical in light of the capriciousness of the US Administration. Perhaps the greatest worry comes from the Administration’s approach to Russia and Ukraine. In the White House, the President described Putin’s illegal war as genius. Meantime, his vice-president has advocated a proposal that would give Russia the territory that it has illegally seized.

The post-war security of Europe was protected under US-UK leadership through NATO. Our defence, security and intelligence partnership with the US has been a cornerstone of UK foreign policy. When the facts change, we must pause and take stock. The harsh truth is that we can no longer rely on the US. It is time for the UK to lead within Europe and ensure that the brave Ukrainians are properly supported.

At a time when non-democratic states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea seek to menace and undermine democracies, the UK needs partners it can rely on and we cannot say that of Donald Trump. The issue is how to manage this situation. The Conservatives and Reform are currently engaged in an undignified squabble to show who can be the most sycophantic to Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Labour has gone cap in hand to plead with Trump to treat us nicely. On this, I agree with the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that we must proceed from a position of strength.

The Conservatives, Reform and the Labour party fundamentally misunderstand that Trump is someone who believes that might is right and who scorns those who show weakness. We know that Donald Trump wants to be invited to make a state visit to the UK. If he wants to make our relationship transactional, we can do that too. The Prime Minister should make it clear that there will be no state visit unless or until Donald Trump commits to attending a summit on funding and equipping Ukraine to resist Russia’s aggression. If Trump commits to defending Ukraine and talks about seizing the Russian assets held in the US, the UK and the EU so that we can fund Ukraine, then we can talk about a state visit.

The UK needs to strengthen our position in the face of Trump’s bullying. We trade more than twice as much with our closest neighbours in the EU than we do with the US, and they share our immediate security threats—unlike the US, many of them are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression. By showing leadership in European security, and opening negotiations on a new UK-EU customs union, the UK would show Donald Trump that we are serious about leading and will not bend to his threats.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister.

15:35

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this important and timely debate.

Our bilateral relationship with the United States is one to be cherished. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), represented our party at President Trump’s inauguration last month. We look forward with optimism to the opportunities presented by his election. However, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made, shall we say, choice remarks about the President, so it is fortunate for the Government that our ties go beyond the simply political. The friendship and affinity between our two peoples and countries are profound and deep-rooted, manifesting in millions of interactions each and every day—from nearly £300 million in trade and co-operation of defence and security, to shared cultural values and a commitment to prosperity and freedom.

Our diplomatic ties bring all that together. As her posting in Washington comes to an end, I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce for her work as British ambassador to Washington. I had the pleasure of meeting Dame Karen when I was a Foreign Office Minister. This Friday will mark five years since her appointment, and she has served with distinction.

One area that is ripe for development is our trading relationship. When we were in government, our total trade with the United States grew from £123.5 billion in 2010 to £294.1 billion in the four quarters to the end of the third quarter of 2024. Labour could go further and get moving on a UK-US trade deal from which every part of the UK stands to benefit. The deal that the Conservative Government were drawing up with the last Trump Administration is sitting on the shelf. Will the Minister commit to seizing this golden opportunity and dusting off our free-trade deal? What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to get back to the negotiating table with President Trump and finish what we started?

In the absence of a full trade deal, do the Government have any plans to negotiate any new state-level agreements? In March last year, we signed a trade pact with Texas, which came just four months on from agreeing the UK-Florida memorandum of understanding. We also signed the Atlantic declaration in 2023. That declaration, and the accompanying action plan, forms the basis of an innovative partnership across the full spectrum of our trade relations. Will the Minister update us on what he and his colleagues have done since July to build on the Atlantic declaration and deliver on the action plan?

I will turn now to defence and security co-operation between the UK and the US, which is particularly crucial within NATO. We have a key role in influencing other member states to do more. We hosted the 2014 NATO summit and made the Wales pledge. That leadership was dearly needed at a time when Britain was one of only four countries to meet their defence spending targets. Today, we need to step up to the plate once again. The Conservative party went into the election with a full funded plan to increase spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. That was a serious and major financial commitment, but 2.5% should never be seen as an end state; rather, it is a further step on the road back to the sustained increase in defence investment that we need to fully upgrade our overall deterrence posture.

Our defence policy programme will look at how we deliver more resources to the military and ensure that more funding is well spent. We will always be prudent with the public finances, but our approach to defence will be fundamentally threat-driven, with a total focus on delivering a safe and secure United Kingdom. Sadly, we see that Labour is now wobbling on its 2.5% commitment. As I have said, this is not about the number, but about our influence. If Labour fails to show the leadership in NATO that we did, we will be vacating our role as key influences in the alliance.

Integral to our security partnership are the theatres in which we work closely with the United States, and one of the Government’s first acts was to rush the Chagos islands out of the door at any price, undermining that partnership. We have been calling for weeks for the Government to wait for the new US Administration to give a view, instead of trying to force through a deal. I am pleased that they have finally conceded that they need a steer from President Trump before proceeding. Will the Minister now confirm what discussions the Government had with the new Administration in the lead-up to the inauguration?

We know that the Foreign Secretary spoke to the US Secretary of State and discussed Diego Garcia, so it is disappointing that we had to drag this fact out of the Government through written questions rather than the Government’s being candid in their read-out, which did not mention Diego Garcia. What are the Government trying to hide? What exactly did the Foreign Secretary discuss with Secretary Rubio in respect of the Chagos islands? Will UK and US autonomy of operations on Diego Garcia be absolutely guaranteed, or have the Government offered complete sovereignty, as is being reported in the media this afternoon? If, at the end of the term of the treaty, we cannot extend the period during which we exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia, will the UK-US base have to be decommissioned? This failure of diplomacy has so far never failed to bewilder. Rather than flogging our strategic assets along with the kitchen sink, Labour should focus on strengthening our shared defence capabilities.

On China, it is difficult to reconcile the clear position of the United States with the this Government’s approach. For all the Chancellor’s kowtowing in Beijing, she returned with only £600 million over five years. Where was the China audit? I understand that work is under way, but it is not due to conclude until the spring. Did Foreign Office Ministers at least discuss the audit with the Chancellor before she set off? The response to my written parliamentary question today was, let us say, somewhat lacking in clarity. The read-out on gov.uk was murky, and instead of inviting real scrutiny, the Chancellor preferred to take questions from the state-run media of the Chinese Communist party, so perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to what was actually discussed. We know that the new US Administration are particularly concerned about China’s anti-competitive trade and economic practices. Which aspects of China’s economic practices did the Chancellor raise concerns about in Beijing?

Hon. Members know that the root cause of so much of the suffering in the middle east is the Iranian regime. Through its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and, until its collapse, the Assad regime, Iran sows discord and misery. In April last year, we were in lock step with the United States in responding to Iran’s destabilising activity, including its direct attack on Israel. Through a co-ordinated package with the US, leading Iranian military figures were sanctioned, and we tightened the net on key actors in Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicle and missile industries, further limiting its ability to destabilise the region. Will the Minister tell us how the Government plan to work with our allies, especially the US, on a robust strategy towards Iran? If our American allies reassert maximum pressure on Iran, will the Labour Government be prepared to harden our policy to support that work?

More broadly in the middle east, we all welcome the ceasefire deal that has been secured between Hamas and Israel, and we acknowledge the influence of President Trump in delivering that. It is so important that we work together with the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia to build on the Abraham accords, to ensure that we see a lasting peace in the region. Will the Minister ensure that the UK is absolutely plugged into those discussions and at the forefront, alongside the US?

On Ukraine, it is crucial that we continue to work extremely closely with the US, as we have since the very beginning of Russia’s illegal invasion. American security is on the line in Ukraine, as are British and European security. We therefore need to face the ongoing challenges of that war together. Like others, we are keen to learn more about the specific policies that the new US Administration plan to pursue. We are proud of how we led on support to Ukraine and its people during our time in government. Can the Minister update us on discussions with the new Administration regarding Ukraine, and on what plans there are to continue to build on our considerable support?

To conclude, we have no closer ally than the United States. Over the past century, the essential partnership between our two nations has enabled us to lead on issues of global importance together. Our bilateral relationship is underpinned by deep ties between our people and civil societies, a thriving economic relationship, and the closest co-operation on defence and security. It is a friendship to be treasured, and we hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to strengthen it for years to come.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask that he finishes a couple of minutes before 4 pm to give Mr Cooper a chance to wind up the debate.

15:46

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I know you are also a strong supporter of the UK-US relationship. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper). I also extend my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the tragic accidents in Washington DC and Pennsylvania in recent days. Our thoughts are with the American people and the people of those cities at this time. I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their dedicated work in such challenging conditions, as we saw after the terrible attacks in Las Vegas and New Orleans, and in the terrible forest fires in Los Angeles.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate, and for his work on the Business and Trade Committee. He will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with all his comments, but there are some areas of agreement. I certainly agree with his characterisation of the very balanced trading relationship that we have with the United States; that point was also made by other Members on both sides of the House. I agree about some of the global threats that we must work on together, and about the fundamental values that bind us together in relation to defence, security and liberty. I gently say to him that there are no “toadying diplomats”; they are motivated by a great degree of duty and service, exemplified by Dame Karen Pierce, who will be retiring shortly from her role. I would take issue with him on that.

The partnership between the United Kingdom and the United States is strong and historic, and it is understandably of huge interest to Members of this House and the wider public. We have heard reference to the important role that BAPG and others play; many individual parliamentarians’ links and histories are crucial to the relationship.

We will always do what is right for the British people, and a crucial part of that is a strong United Kingdom-US relationship. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) made powerful comments on that point. Our US links have a powerful role to play in delivering on many UK missions: ensuring long-term peace and security in the middle east, Europe and the Indo-Pacific; growing the economy in both our countries; delivering on security for our citizens; and propelling the tech revolution to achieve a sustainable and prosperous future for us all—to name just a few. This is a timely and important debate, and I am grateful for the many contributions. I will try my best to respond to them all.

We all recognise the extraordinary mandate that President Trump received from the American people in November. It was truly historic, as rightly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). My hon. Friend was also right to talk about the challenges faced by the American people—indeed, his own constituents —in relation to growth in the economy, a matter that we are resolute in attempting to address as a Government. We see that election as an opportunity to engage with the United States with a renewed sense of energy, dynamism and purpose, and we have been forthright in extending our congratulations to President Trump on his victory. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have reiterated their commitment to working closely with him and his Administration.

The Prime Minister spoke to the President on 26 January, and the warmth of their discussion demonstrated that the friendship between our countries is not restricted to any one political party or tradition; our relationship transcends them, as several hon. Members have rightly said. The Foreign Secretary, similarly, was delighted to speak to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 27 January, and they expressed their eagerness to commence work together to address our many shared challenges, including the situation in the middle east, Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and the challenges posed by China. I pay tribute to President Trump’s work on securing the ceasefire and the release of hostages, which was referred to in the debate.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make some progress. I will try to come back to the right hon. Lady if I have time at the end, but a lot of points were made.

The Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also reaffirmed our enduring commitment to the AUKUS partnership. Many Opposition Members rightly referred to the depth of our defence relationship, including the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who did so very aptly and whom I thank for his service. The depth of that relationship remains an essential pillar of our collective security.

In an increasingly unstable world, we agree that NATO should be strengthened and defence spending increased to adapt to new threats, which is why the Prime Minister has underlined our cast-iron commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. The UK looks forward to working with President Trump to ensure that our NATO alliance keeps Americans and Europeans safe, including in regions such as the Arctic. We will not tolerate attempts to disrupt critical infrastructure or restrict freedom of navigation by our adversaries. There is no global security without Arctic security. Alongside our closest allies, we are ready to support security in that region. That is one of the reasons I recently travelled there for the Arctic Circle Assembly.

Equally, as has been rightly mentioned, including by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), our support for Ukraine is iron-clad. When the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last month, he saw at first hand the unrelenting aggression from Russia that Ukrainians face every day. As the PM said, the US has played a vital role alongside allies in supporting Ukraine. Our collective stance should be to help Ukraine to be in the strongest possible position in the months to come. I thank the shadow Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members for their support and comments on that.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the British Indian Ocean Territory and I know many feel strongly about it. I advise them to take much of the reporting on that, especially regarding the finances, with a large pinch of salt. I will repeat what I have said in the House: the Government inherited a situation where the long-term future of the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which is so vital to UK and US security, was under threat. Finalising a deal means we can secure that base with strong protections, including from malign influence, that will allow the base to operate unchanged well into the next century. In close collaboration with the US—it is right that we give it time to consider—we will only agree to a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and those of our allies, and that protects our collective national security.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way on Chagos?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered many questions on Chagos. I am going to make progress, because I am conscious of the time.

Since taking office, the UK Government have shown strong international leadership on climate, and a steadfast commitment to the sustainable development goals. We remain committed to an impactful and reformed WHO. However, global issues require collective action, which is why the UK will continue to work with partners, including the US, our closest ally, to advance shared goals.

A lot of comments today rightly focused on the strength of our economic and trading partnership, which is a crucial pillar of our relationship. Strengthening that partnership with the US is a core component of the Government’s growth mission. We only have to reflect on Robert Lighthizer’s past statement that the Anglo-American trade relationship

“may be the healthiest…in the world”—

almost a decade later, the same can be said today.

Crucially, as has been said, I emphasise that we have a fair and balanced trading relationship that benefits both sides of the Atlantic. That relationship is worth more than £300 billion a year—nearly a fifth of all UK trade. We have more than a £1 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and more than 1 million Americans work for UK-owned businesses, and the same the other way. Those relationships go far beyond London and Washington DC. We heard about the important relationship with Scotland and Scotch whisky, as outlined by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who sponsored the debate. There are strong ties in my own community in Wales. We also heard about the strong ties with Northern Ireland.

From US defence manufacturing in Bedfordshire to the close to 50,000 jobs supported by UK companies in Vice-President Vance’s home state of Ohio, the US is an extraordinarily dynamic economy with a huge amount of potential for the UK. Our countries share a determination to drive economic growth, which is the UK Government’s core aim. We are committed to open and free trade, and its crucial role in delivering economic growth.

Although we might have a different philosophical approach to tariffs, we will continue to seize opportunities to boost trade with the US in a way that promotes growth, creates jobs and aligns with the UK’s national interests. Indeed, we seek to strengthen relationships at all levels of the US economy, including with cities and states. I have had the pleasure of meeting many governors and lieutenant governors over the past few months to discuss that.

We are not going to choose between our allies, as the Prime Minister has said. It is not a case of either America or Europe. That is apparently my own family history, which I will come to later. We are inexorably bound together and face the same global threats and challenges. We have a strong will to overcome those together. Our national interest demands that we work with both, which is exactly what we will do.

I cannot end without reflecting on the vibrant links between the peoples of the United States and the United Kingdom. I am particularly proud, in that regard, of my own family ties to the United States, including my American grandfather, Harold, who fought in Europe in world war two. He came over from the Bronx in New York, in that strong tradition of service and duty that binds our two peoples together, including in the armed forces. My family history goes back to Pennsylvania in the 1700s, and I have many ties across the United States. I have visited 25 of the United States in my life, and counting. I am honoured to be the Minister with the responsibility for those relationships. As I said, those relationships exist across all of the United States and all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I am looking forward to marking the 250th anniversary of US independence next year, as well as the FIFA world cup, which will be hosted by Canada, Mexico and the US, not to mention the LA Olympics in 2028. Speaking of sports, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway is, as he said, well aware of President Trump’s deep affection for Scotland, with his mother having been born on the Isle of Lewis and with his golf resort Trump Turnberry. I have some family history in Kirkcudbrightshire in Scotland, and I studied at the University of St Andrews, another key Scottish golfing location.

The President’s deep affection for our country and all its parts, as well as for our royal family, is well understood. We really welcome that affection and those special ties, which are another side of our special relationship. We also have incredible educational ties, including through the Marshall scholarship programme. I have met many of the Marshall scholars. We count a CIA director, five US ambassadors, two members of Congress, six Pulitzer prize winners, a NASA astronaut and a Nobel laureate among our Marshall alumni.

[Calum Miller]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious of time, but I will very briefly give way.

[Calum Miller]

The Minister is giving a wonderful description of familial and other ties. Will he address the fact that the current US Administration are of a very different nature from previous ones, and can he tell us how the Government are addressing that change?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, we are going to focus on our common agendas globally: on growth, on defence, on security and on common prospects for our peoples. That is very much what this Government are focused on, and our relationship transcends all Administrations and all parties. That has been very clear under multiple Governments in the United States and the United Kingdom in the past.

I will take the opportunity to thank our consulates for their incredible work to promote strong ties across the United States. I also thank Dame Karen Pierce, as the shadow Minister did, for her tremendous leadership as ambassador to the US. It has been a pleasure to work with her and her team. She has done an outstanding job of nurturing the relationship over the last three years through the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and, of course, our own elections.

Lord Mandelson, the next ambassador to the US, who I met just yesterday, will bring his extensive foreign and economic knowledge, strong business links and experience at the highest levels of Government, not least in trade, to the table. I know he will seize that new role with the same level of vigour, diligence and enthusiasm for our relationship as those who preceded him.

I conclude by saying that there is a vital and dynamic alliance between the United Kingdom and the US. We might not always agree on everything, but there is a huge amount on which we do agree. We all want our voters to feel the benefits of economic growth in their pockets. We want peace and security not just in the middle east, but in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, and globally. We want to harness the tech revolution for all our peoples.

Together, we will face those challenges. Our special relationship has endured, it continues to endure and it will endure; it is forged in blood, it is formed in common ideals and it is focused on the wellbeing and security of our citizens. It is a remarkable story, and long may it continue.

15:58

[John Cooper]

I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part today. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the aviation tragedies in America. Our hearts are with all those affected. It is clear from this debate that the strength of our relationship with America matters a great deal to us.

I want to pick up on one or two Members’ contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who told us that the birds and the bees have, apparently, been upgraded to the rhinos and the sloths. I shall resist saying too much about Orangemen, but it suffices to say that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not, I suspect, a fan of fake tan.

I also thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). He knows, better than most of us, the importance of immediate action. We must take that message away when we consider defence spending. We need to urgently see where we are with that.

I conclude by saying that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might take the message to America that we are not junior partners. Rather than us becoming the 51st state of the USA, the United States might, in fact, like to come back in under the furled umbrella of the British empire.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK-US bilateral relationship.