PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Arctic Security - 19 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I begin by expressing my condolences to all affected by the terrible train crash near Cordoba last night and thanking the Spanish emergency services who responded overnight and throughout today. I am sure the House will join me in thinking of the people of Spain at this distressing time.

With permission, I will make a statement on Greenland and wider Arctic security.

On the evening of Saturday 17 January, President Trump announced the intention to impose 10% tariffs on goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK over the future of Greenland. This is a serious moment for our transatlantic discussions and partnerships, so let me outline to the House the UK’s response, which rests on three key principles. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Its future is a matter for Greenlanders and the Danes, and them alone. This reflects the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity to which the whole House is committed. Secondly, the use or threat of tariffs against allies in this way is completely wrong, unwarranted and counterproductive. Thirdly, Arctic security is a shared concern and a shared responsibility for both sides of the Atlantic. It can be effectively addressed and maintained only through co-operation between transatlantic allies and, crucially, through NATO. So instead of divisions that only aid our adversaries, we now need a serious and constructive dialogue about our Arctic security that is built on respect for sovereignty and collective security and the rules that underpin our alliance.

As the Prime Minister set out this morning, the north star for the Government’s foreign policy is to stand up for the UK’s national interest and to defend and advance Britain’s security, Britain’s prosperity and Britain’s values, and we do so through the alliances and partnerships we build abroad that make us stronger here at home, including alliances where that transatlantic co-operation between Europe and North America has long been vital. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our close and deep-rooted partnership with the United States is a hugely important part of our security and our prosperity. The depth of our co-operation on intelligence sharing and defence helps keep us safe, and our trading relationship and the new agreements we have reached in the last 12 months are driving billions of pounds of investment in the UK, supporting jobs across the country. But the Prime Minister has also made it clear that we will be very direct about our differences, as he was in speaking to President Trump yesterday, because standing up for the UK national interest means defending the principles that underpin stable and enduring international co-operation. That means respect for sovereignty and respect for long-standing allies.

Denmark is a close ally of the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, Denmark has long been one of the US’s closest allies, a proud NATO member that has stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK and the US, including at real human cost in recent decades. Rooted in that partnership, the US already has in place a 1951 treaty with Denmark that provides for an extensive US security presence in Greenland. Alliances endure because they are built on respect and partnership, not pressure, and tariff threats like this are no way to treat allies.

The tariff threat has come following the co-ordinated preparations for the annual Danish programme of activities under the Arctic Endurance framework, which is focused on addressing Russian security threats in the Arctic. Last week, at the request of the Danish Government, one UK military officer currently based in Denmark joined a planning group visit in an observational capacity. These sorts of visits are a regular part of military planning ahead of exercises and operations—work among allies to strengthen Greenland’s security that should be recognised for its importance, not used as a reason to impose economic pressure.

A trade war would hurt workers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be in no one’s interests. Both sides of the Atlantic should be working together on Arctic security, not moving apart. That is why the Prime Minister and this Government are working intensively in the UK national interest to prevent this from happening and to reach a resolution.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke directly with President Trump, the Danish Prime Minister and other close allies and international leaders. Today, I welcomed Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen here to London for valuable discussions, and the Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with the Greenland Foreign Minister. I have also been in direct contact with the US, Canada, France, Germany and other European colleagues, and on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will visit Denmark. We will continue with this urgent diplomacy in pursuit of the principles I have set out.

We will also argue for the strengthening of our multilateral co-operation around Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway for Russia’s northern fleet to threaten Britain, western Europe and North America—threats to undersea cables and to critical national infrastructure. We have seen a greater presence of Russian ships and submarines making their way to the north Atlantic. We have seen Russian aircraft testing our air defence as shadow fleet vessels pass through our waters, trying to evade our sanctions and continuing to fund the war in Ukraine. Northern Norway, Finland and sea routes through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap have long been strategically significant when considering Russian threats. We know that the strategic significance of the Arctic is likely to grow as the melting of Arctic ice stands to open new routes through the Arctic ocean, and with new-found geo-economic competition for critical minerals and rare earths.

Arctic security is crucial not just to the UK but to the entire NATO alliance—of the eight countries north of the Arctic circle, seven are NATO allies—so across our alliance, working together, we can and should do more. That is why last week I travelled to Finland and Norway to discuss the threats they currently face, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was also in Sweden.

In Helsinki, I met the Finnish Foreign Minister and was briefed on Finnish border force activities to tackle a Russian ship that had damaged undersea cables between Finland and Estonia. In northern Norway, I met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. We signed a new agreement to strengthen our co-operation to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, and we travelled together to Camp Viking to see the work of the Royal Marines and their Norwegian partners.

In the bitter cold of that unforgiving landscape, our commando forces are training and exercising, and preparing for contingencies. For more than 50 years, the Royal Marines have trained in the Norwegian Arctic, but we are increasing that commitment by doubling the number of marines there from 1,000 to 2,000 in the space of three years—I pay tribute to their phenomenal work. Alongside that, the landmark Lunna House defence agreement will see the UK and Norway jointly operate a new fleet of Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates to hunt Russian submarines and protect our critical undersea infrastructure.

In the autumn, the UK-led joint expeditionary force saw thousands of troops, including over 1,700 British personnel, dozens of ships, vehicles and aircraft, deployed from the Baltics to Iceland. The UK plans to contribute to a range of exercises in the north Atlantic and High North throughout 2026, because that is how we believe we will best strengthen our Arctic security for the sake of western Europe and North America—together, through alliances and partnerships, not through threats on tariffs or on sovereignty that simply undermine our collective security.

I welcome the messages of cross-party unity and the shared conviction that the future of Greenland must be determined by the Greenlanders and the Danes. Whether on Greenland, on tariffs or on wider Arctic security, we are clear in our views, firm in our principles and steadfast in our commitment to safeguarding UK interests. The UK will continue to pursue constructive ways forward, collaborating intensively with our partners and allies and pursuing our security, our prosperity and our values every step of the way. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I begin by expressing our condolences to the people of Spain following the devasting train crash yesterday.

The Conservative party is clear that the US Administration’s decision to announce tariffs on the UK over Greenland is completely wrong. People in the United Kingdom and the United States will face higher costs because of the proposed tariffs. The tariffs will be yet another burden for businesses across our country, and they go against the United States’ recent national security strategy, which says:

“It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty…We stand for the sovereign rights of nations”.

We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark. The future of Greenland must be for its people and Denmark—and for them alone—to decide. Denmark is a valued NATO ally and a leading contributor to Ukraine; indeed, it is one of the highest per capita donors. We have also worked with Denmark on Arctic security, and it is imperative that we and our European NATO allies now show a determination to go much further and back up our words with actions.

The security challenges in the Arctic must be tackled head-on, particularly the threat of Russia. Greenland is of geopolitical significance to every NATO member state, including the United Kingdom. The best way to tackle threats is to work together in unison, as NATO allies, because America’s national security is indivisible from NATO’s—they are one and the same. That collective security is the basis of our national defence architecture.

Collective action in the immediate term is how we should work together to address those challenges, so will the Foreign Secretary say what resources the Government will put in place to prioritise or repurpose their inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions? What are the Government doing to look at how, working with the US, we can build on existing joint defence agreements to broker a greater consensual military presence on Greenland from both sides of the Atlantic? What is the Government’s plan to help lead international efforts to secure the safety of Arctic shipping routes as they become more open, stave off exploitation of Greenland’s critical minerals by malign actors, protect the region’s fisheries, and boost digital connectivity and security, particularly at sea?

Has the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with Secretary Rubio and, if not, what will she propose when she speaks to him, including on the security issue in the High North? UK leadership matters at this challenging moment for NATO, and we should advance a push from all NATO allies to thwart Putin’s ambitions in the High North. It is incumbent on the United Kingdom to help to lead that charge, and our ability to convene outside the EU is a strength that we should put into play.

The Conservatives have also called on the Prime Minister to push for an urgent NATO meeting that includes the United States especially. Will the Government pursue that, so that a position can be reconciled behind closed doors and we can present a united front to our adversaries?

It is important for our economy and for businesses that the Government secure a reversal of the position on tariffs. This is not a moment for megaphone diplomacy, but can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s strategy for bringing the US round to revoking those tariffs before their kick-in date? Can she also confirm the UK’s position on countermeasures?

Under the tariff deal agreed in the spring, the UK secured a reduced 10% tariff for 100,000 vehicles. Does the Foreign Secretary expect the 10% Greenland tariff to be added to that existing 10% tariff, effectively doubling the tax on British car exports to 20% from 1 February?

Pharmaceuticals were also a cornerstone of the agreement on tariff-free exemptions. Does the Foreign Secretary expect life sciences to be protected from the new baseline tariff, or will the 100% tariff threatened in late 2025 now be accelerated? What specific support will her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade provide for small and medium-sized business exporters, which could face an overnight increase of 10% in the costs for their largest export market? What assessment have the Government made of the potential economic impact of tariffs, and what can be done to mitigate that?

This is a time for cool but determined heads, because the stakes are significant and enormous for our country. This is not just a big geopolitical moment; it is a moment of real concern for businesses and exporters in our country. We are counting on British diplomacy to reverse the tariff situation and bring a swift end to the debacle over Greenland. The US is our closest ally: the way that our security agencies operate together is unparalleled in modern history and our bilateral trading relationship dwarfs every other. In this moment, we need to summon and leverage the strength and depth of that special relationship.

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response and welcome her support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark and for the strengthening of support for Arctic security against the Russian threat, which she is right to highlight. She asked what work can be done to establish constructive discussions, and indeed, I talked to the Danish Foreign Minister about that today. Denmark has set out a process to have detailed talks with the US on how to strengthen security around Greenland, being very clear that the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable, but that there are many issues to be discussed around strengthening security.

I spoke to Secretary Rubio today and we agreed to take forward further discussions on the issue. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will be pursuing every avenue for discussions directly with the US and with all our close allies, the purpose being to prevent the tariffs and the trade war that would be in no one’s interest, and to replace the threats about sovereignty and tariffs with a constructive, shared approach to our security, including security in the Arctic.

There is a critical issue here. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to be able to threaten the UK, western Europe, the US and Canada. That is why this is a shared threat and requires a shared response. That is why, as part of the discussions in Norway and Finland last week, I proposed that NATO should establish an Arctic sentry, similar to the approach that NATO has taken to the Baltic Sentry and the Eastern Sentry, with co-ordination that brings together and looks in a strategic way at all the issues around security across the Arctic. We believe that it is through those partnerships and alliances that we can best strengthen our shared security against the threats that should concern us most.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The main purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement today was to send out an international message, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the skilful way in which she has amplified that message this evening. However, there is another audience who deeply appreciate what the Prime Minister has had to say. Many ordinary British people are becoming increasingly anxious about the threats being made by one of our most important friends to one of our allies. They are frightened by the dark turn that international relations seem to have taken and the potential chaos that we may be heading for. In fact, a friend of mine texted me today to tell me that as she was watching the Prime Minister live, she was weeping—she has found this very frightening. Will the Foreign Secretary convey the thanks of so many of us to the Prime Minister for his clarity, calm and leadership?

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will convey that message to the Prime Minister. We have clearly seen that our Prime Minister is standing up for the UK national interest, our security and prosperity and British values. We know that our security and prosperity are strengthened by alliances and partnerships, not by pulling apart.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by the Foreign Secretary about the terrible rail crash in Spain? I thank her for her statement.

President Trump is acting like an international gangster, threatening to trample over the sovereignty of an ally, threatening the end of NATO altogether and now threatening to hit our country and seven European allies with outrageous, damaging tariffs unless he gets his hands on Greenland. This is an incredibly grave moment for the United Kingdom, Europe and our world. Without provocation or justification, the President of the United States is attacking our economy, our livelihoods and our national security. Trump has put British businesses and jobs on the frontline in his unprovoked aggression. The only people cheering him on are Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Only a few months ago, Trump hailed the special relationship at Windsor castle. Now, thanks to his actions, it is nearly in tatters.

How do we stop Trump’s damaging trade war? For a year now, the Prime Minister has tried a policy of appeasing Trump, flattering him, fawning over him and refusing to stand up to him, because—he argued—Trump would otherwise hit us with damaging tariffs. Well, the Prime Minister has tested his approach to destruction, and it has failed. It is time for the Government to change course.

We have to finally be clear-eyed about the sort of man Trump is and treat him accordingly. He is a bully. He thinks that he can grab whatever he wants, using force if necessary, and he is corrupt—the most corrupt president that the United States has ever seen. There are only two ways of getting him to back down: bribing him—with a new jet, perhaps, or a few billion in his crypto account—or standing up to him, like we would with any other bully, and standing together with our European allies to make him back down. That is the choice. Which one, Foreign Secretary?

This is clearly a serious moment. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman actually saw the Prime Minister’s response this morning. He should know that it is because this is a serious moment that we respond in a serious way and that this Prime Minister responds in a serious, calm, robust and hard-headed way about what is in the UK’s national interest and how we work together in the alliances that are crucial for our security and prosperity and are underpinned by our values. That is why the Prime Minister has been so firm in the United Kingdom’s response and why I welcomed the Danish Foreign Minister to London today.

The right hon. Member’s description of the response of our Prime Minister and our UK Government is inappropriate. This is a really important time for parties to come together on how we ensure that we can respond to the situation that we are in, work closely with our allies and create a constructive approach to our Arctic security. That ultimately will depend on transatlantic co-operation and ensuring that those alliances and that transatlantic alliance respect the principles of sovereignty and collective security. We will do that in a sober and serious way.

European nations, including our own, are witnessing a very rude awakening: if we do not invest in sovereign capabilities for defence and security and rely instead on others, sooner or later we will be bullied or blackmailed by larger nations. The question for us is: will we just kick the can down the road and trundle along with small, gradual increases in defence investment, or will we chart a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence in this Parliament?

On Arctic security, the Foreign Secretary intimated that only one British officer was involved in the Danish-led Operation Arctic Endurance in Greenland. Will she update the House on our current and future planned participation? Are there any political or practical constraints on that future participation?

On the specific issue that my hon. Friend raised, that was not an operation; it was a planning process, as takes place very routinely, and that continues to be the case. We are arguing for a broader approach to Arctic security. In fact, the UK’s strongest contribution is around the north of Norway. Our partnership with Norway is really unrivalled. We have the commandos and the excellent work that I saw at Camp Viking and elsewhere, as well as the joint frigates. For a non-Arctic nation, our contribution to Arctic security is unrivalled. We see that as being part of the Arctic sentry and a wider approach to collective Arctic security.

My hon. Friend also raises the issue of investment. That is exactly why we have put forward the biggest increase in defence spending for very many years.

I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary is being rather mealy-mouthed about a situation that the President of the United States obviously sees as very simple. He believes that through extortion or military force—he is not denying that he may use military force—he can acquire Greenland, whichever way we look at it. As the Foreign Secretary will know, significant military assets owned by the United States are based here in the United Kingdom. Could they be used as part of an invasion of Greenland against our will? Does she recognise that when tariffs were first wielded as a weapon against the Canadians, we should have stood with them, rather than cut a snivelling deal?

First, that is clearly not the situation we are talking about. We have been very clear about the importance of both sovereignty and collective security—that they are not just part of the NATO alliance, but fundamental principles that we stand for.

Turning to tariffs, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the work that the Prime Minister has led has been effective in addressing tariffs in the past. We will show the same determination and robust approach again, as we have done on other issues. It is important that we focus on the results that we can get by taking a hard-headed approach, and that is what we are continuing to do.

Knocking on doors in Denton, Westerhope, Arthur’s Hill and Wingrove, I found that, for the first time in my 15 years as an MP, the No. 1 issue was global insecurity. President Trump has succeeded in uniting the British people against his unwarranted attack on a close ally. My right hon. Friend is right to be calm and diplomatic, but will she reassure us that given the current President’s volatility, she and her Government will ensure that our sovereignty is not dependent on US capability, and specifically that our technology procurement —both civil and defence—will reflect this?

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the very strong feelings on this matter right across the UK—of the need to protect sovereignty for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark more widely, and the sense that to propose tariffs in this way is just deeply wrong. It is counterproductive to our collective security, but it is also deeply wrong.

My hon. Friend has also raised issues of UK resilience. She will know that on things like the Five Eyes partnership, there is very deep, long-standing co-operation and shared technology, but there are also areas in which we agree that Europe needs to do more for its own defence and its own investment, and that is what we are doing.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland. President Trump’s threat to annex Greenland either “the easy way” or “the hard way” is pushing Europe to the verge of one of the biggest political and security crises we have faced in decades. Now, his threat to impose punitive tariffs on those opposing his illegal annexation means that the President of our closest ally is using economic and military threats against the UK and other European nations simply for defending sovereignty, self-determination and international law. On what basis do this Government view this particular President as being a trustworthy and reliable ally?

We have made it very clear that threats to Greenland’s sovereignty are wrong, and that threats of tariffs and economic pressure are also wrong, because allies should stand together and not face the kinds of threats we have seen. That is a particular issue for the UK, but also for Denmark, which has been such a close ally to both the UK and the US. We are taking a very robust, hard-headed approach to this matter, to work through what is in the UK national interest and get a resolution that can protect, defend and strengthen Arctic security, as well as UK security more widely. That is the right thing to do.

Order. Colleagues need to shorten their questions. Many Members want to get in, and that will depend on the length of your questions.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for setting out the UK’s position that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Danes to decide. It is not right that one of our closest and oldest allies is threatening us with economic sanctions, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, how will she explain to the US Administration our interests and our actions at this time, and stop the sanctions and resolve the situation? Secondly, building on the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), might the Foreign Secretary take an interest in the Franco-British fast jet replacement programme and a company called Aeralis, so that we do not have to rely on an American solution?

We have been very clear, both to the US and more widely, about the importance of countries working together to strengthen security. That is exactly what Denmark has been seeking to do—to strengthen the security of Greenland as part of strengthening Arctic security against the Russian threat. Where countries come together to do so, that should be recognised as important and valuable, because Arctic security is a multilateral issue, not a unilateral one. It will only be strengthened by countries working together, so this is about our interests in that shared, collective security, but also our values of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, NATO, the Danes and others have been commended for responding to this situation through the usual channels and the usual means. That would be fine if we had an occupant of the White House who understood and respected all that, but he laughs now not just behind his hand but blatantly, in our faces, as a result. While all that continues, we need to try to work out what makes this man tick. He is thin-skinned, he has an ego, and he does not like to be embarrassed. Should the state visit go ahead this year? Should football teams play in American stadia for the world cup? These are things that would embarrass the President at home. We now need to fight fire with fire.

We heard from the Prime Minister this morning the approach he is taking. The approach that our Prime Minister and this Government have taken has already led to very big changes in the United States’ initial proposals on tariffs, which were substantially reduced and changed as a result of that engagement. As a result of our engagement we have also seen big changes in the US approach to Ukraine: considerable work has now been done to secure agreements around security guarantees that have been immensely important. That is the result of continued engagement, not just by the Prime Minister but by others more widely. We are clear about the importance of working in the UK’s national interests and pursuing different issues to make sure that we protect UK businesses and UK prosperity, as well as our shared values, including sovereignty.

As a proud member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I thank the Foreign Secretary for her visit to our Marines at Camp Viking in Norway, and for her unequivocal stance in support of collective security with NATO at its heart. I welcome the Rycroft review of foreign interference in our politics. In the context of NATO and Arctic security, does the Foreign Secretary agree it is vital that we get to the bottom of the role that Russian money plays in trying to subvert our public discourse on these hugely important issues?

I know that my hon. Friend and others have been raising this issue, particularly about the hybrid threats from Russia. There are the direct threats we see in the Arctic, but also broader hybrid threats, which range from sabotage—of undersea cables, for example—to foreign interference, including information interference. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing an important inquiry into this issue, and I look forward to its conclusions, but we have substantially increased UK sanctions to address some of the interference threats.

The post-war world order was based on the premise that like-minded western liberal democracies would stand up for each other, expand democracy wherever we saw it and lower the barriers to free trade, and that through NATO we would engage in collective responsibility—an attack against one was an attack against all. It is clear that the President of the United States does not share those values. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK should be closening our military and economic bonds with the European allies that do share those values?

The transatlantic security relationship of North America—the US and Canada—and western Europe, and the whole of Europe working together around security, has been immensely important for a long time. We continue to have shared interests and shared threats—for example, Arctic security is clearly a shared security interest—but we are also strengthening our direct security and defence co-operation with Europe. Central to the EU reset was strengthening defence co-operation with our European allies, with whom we are bound by our close geography, as well as our shared values and interests. We will continue to strengthen those relationships.

Donald Trump’s appalling threats to seize Greenland, along with his disgusting bombing of Venezuela, are a new form of gangster politics that are set out in his new national security strategy, which also speaks of boosting support for the far right across Europe. We have to deal with that reality, and Trump’s threats of tariffs this weekend show how little we can rely on the so-called special relationship. Instead of blindly following US policy, as we have done all too often in the past, with disastrous consequences, is it not now time to stand up to Trump and forge a new independent foreign policy based on international law, peace and co-operation? Those important values are the antithesis of what Donald Trump stands for.

I caution my hon. Friend against somehow suggesting equivalence in a whole series of different areas. I am disappointed that he has not, as part of his question, recognised the scale of the threat from Russia, which is the most serious threat the UK faces.

We have to ride the Trump tiger as best we can until November 2028, but the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders. However, when the Foreign Secretary talks to her Danish interlocutors, can she ever so gently point out that small countries such as Denmark have historically spent little on their defence and on collective defence? Will she also, perhaps equally as gently, admonish Denmark? Along with most member states of the European Union, it has administered something of a punishment beating to this country since 2016.

I was delighted to see the Danish Foreign Minister in London today. He is a friend, and Denmark is a close friend of the UK. Denmark has stood firm alongside the UK and the US, including by putting its armed forces’ lives at risk in Afghanistan and in other conflicts to support close allies. The Danes have shown immense dedication to the principles of collective security, they continue to show substantial support for Ukraine against Russia, and I want to strongly show Denmark the UK’s support.

This week’s tensions highlight the strategic importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the urgent need for Europeans to fill the gaps in their ability to defend that space. Currently, that can be done only by the United States of America. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s discussions with our European counterparts on strengthening our defence industries? What discussions have there been on full access to Security Action for Europe?

My hon. Friend has immense expertise in this area and is right to highlight the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap as being crucial to maintaining the security of the Atlantic and as the basis for a lot of Arctic security issues. That is exactly why the UK and Norway are now jointly building new frigates as part of a major investment programme. It is one of the biggest defence contracts we have ever had. Norway is investing not just in jobs in the UK but, crucially, in an unrivalled partnership to strengthen our maritime security.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

“I will happily accept tariffs to oppose Trump and his corrupt regime.”

Those are not my words, but those of a Bath constituent who emailed me today. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the strong feelings of so many of our constituents? They are ready to stand up to the bully that Donald Trump is, and they want the Government to do the same.

Across the country there are strong feelings about the tariff threats we have seen. That is why we have been clear that they are completely wrong. The impact of tariffs is felt by businesses, by consumers and by ordinary families in the US, in the UK and in other European countries. That is why tariffs are completely counterproductive, as well as being completely wrong.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s calm diplomacy this morning. It is right that only adversaries stand to gain from the fracturing of NATO. The Government do not believe that the US President is serious about using military force to seize Greenland, but even in just the past hour he has refused to rule that out. My right hon. Friend will also know that the President spoke about wanting Greenland in his previous term in office; he has long been serious about it. As the UK is the lead nation in the joint expeditionary force, can she assure me that, alongside NATO-level discussions, we are engaging fully with our JEF partners?

We regularly engage with joint expeditionary force partners. Indeed, there were meetings around the joint expeditionary force last week, and I believe there are further such meetings later this week, which the Ministry of Defence is heavily involved in supporting. That is exactly because we take these shared security issues so seriously. We know that for a country like the UK our security depends on the alliances we build, including with close European allies through the JEF.

Greenland is being offered two options: to be sold or to be annexed. This is naked imperialism. The Government of Greenland have made clear that they will work with the US in any way necessary to protect our security and that of Europe, but I am afraid that beyond the vague diplomatic assurances of diplomatic activity and claims of being hard-headed, I am no clearer, from the statement, about what the Government are doing to keep us safe from tariffs and, more importantly, to protect our security and the sovereignty of Greenland.

To be honest, I am surprised by that question from the hon. Lady, because she has experience in foreign affairs. She knows how diplomatic discussions take place and the urgency with which those discussions are taking place right now. She will understand the importance of those discussions. She will understand the importance of the collaboration with our allies and partners and how those discussions take place. She will also have seen the results of taking a similar hard-headed and robust approach to previous issues and the previous discussions we have taken forward. We will continue to do that. In terms of the people of Greenland, we have seen the protests on the streets in Greenland, and we have seen the strong views expressed by the people of the Kingdom of Denmark more widely. We will continue to support them and their sovereignty.

Section 21 in chapter 8 of the Greenland Self-Government Act 2009 states that decisions

“regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland.”

Therefore, no external coercion should be applied to Greenland’s people. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with our European allies to ensure that that Act is respected and that no major power can pressure the Greenlanders over their constitutional status?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. That is exactly why the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with Greenland’s Foreign Minister, and why I had many discussions today with the Danish Foreign Minister about our support for the sovereignty of the people of Greenland. It is for them and the Danes, side by side, to decide their future, and not for anyone else.

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should be working with our allies—I welcome that approach—but I fear that Donald Trump does not agree with her. What are the Government doing to harden our infrastructure? We are heavily dependent on several American IT systems, including Palantir, controlled by Peter Thiel, who is well inside the coterie of Donald Trump’s Administration. On sanctions, we have seen that they could switch off Microsoft’s provision of services to the International Criminal Court. Will the Government look into ensuring that Palantir is not a single point of failure in our critical systems—in the health service, defence, the Cabinet Office and now the police?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take all issues involving critical national infrastructure immensely seriously. There are areas—for example, our security and intelligence Five Eyes partnership—where our technology partnerships go back many generations. I remember my first Five Eyes meetings in the United States to discuss these matters, more than 25 years ago, and those technology partnerships have strengthened since then. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should also consider key areas in which critical national infrastructure needs to be strengthened.

I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We all know that the geo-security issues in the High North are due to Russia’s threat to NATO. I am very pleased that the Foreign Secretary went to Norway last week, because we have two Russian bases on NATO territory in Svalbard. What discussions did she have with her Norwegian counterparts about the possibility of ending the Russian presence on that NATO territory?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issues in the High North are about the Russian threats. That has long been the case, but we have seen those threats grow. There was a time at the ending of the cold war when, I think, everyone was optimistic that this might fundamentally change. Sadly, many years on, that has proved not to be the case, which is why the partnership between the UK and Norway is crucial for our security, the security of the whole of NATO, and the security of many of our allies as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep a range of issues under discussion.

The Foreign Secretary is, of course, absolutely right to insist that the future of Greenland is a question only for the people of Greenland, but does she acknowledge that this crisis is the consequence of our weakness—of decades of failure on the part of Europe and the UK to invest in defence, and, indeed, of a historic failure of statecraft on the part of the United Kingdom? One naval officer went to Greenland, and as a consequence, 10% tariffs are to be imposed on us. The Foreign Secretary mentioned a conversation that she had in Scandinavia last week. Did she offer to do more than simply co-operate with our partners and neighbours, and to actually lead in the defence of Greenland by committing a proper joint expeditionary force, led by the UK, with a proper commitment to ensuring the safety of Greenland?

The biggest threat to Arctic security comes from Russia, and the hon. Member would have a lot more credibility in talking about any of these Arctic security issues if he and his new party looked inward at themselves and carried out the long-needed investigation of Russian influence in that party.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong response, and the assurances that we have heard from the Foreign Secretary today. She has rightly made it clear that Donald Trump’s claims to need to possess Greenland for security reasons are complete and utter nonsense. The United States already has access. The Foreign Secretary spoke of a multilateral approach to Arctic security; there is also the critical minerals element, which I suspect has a great deal to do with Donald Trump’s interest in the country. What are we doing to adopt a similar multilateral approach to critical minerals, as we seek to divest ourselves of reliance on China?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the broader issue of critical minerals. Many of the issues relating to Greenland are long-term issues, as opposed to immediate critical mineral issues, but there is a wider need to ensure that we have security around our critical mineral supply chains, and to work with other countries to prevent any country from having a chokehold on the supply of those critical minerals. That is crucial in connection with new green technologies, but it is also crucial more widely when it comes to our economic prosperity and economic security for the future.

All relationships, particularly special relationships, must have a foundation of respect and mutual consent. What is the view in NATO on economic measures being used to force the annexation of a sovereign NATO territory?

NATO allies need to respect each other. That is a core part of the NATO alliance, and it is what makes the alliance effective. Not to do so simply aids our adversaries.

I welcome both the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning. It may be surprising that neither Greenland nor the Arctic featured as a strategic priority in the United States’ national security strategy, published in November, although transatlantic trade did. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the United States Administration that its goals of prosperity and the long-term security of the Arctic can be achieved only through close co-operation with allies—not through dangerous rhetoric, and actions that risk weakening the collective strength on which we all rely?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The economic prosperity of the UK, Europe, the United States, Canada and our other NATO allies is strengthened by trade, rather than by tariffs, and our security is strengthened by co-operation through NATO, and by respect for each other’s sovereignty and collective security.

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that NATO allies should not threaten one another, and she is also right to highlight the threat and potential harm caused by trade wars and the imposition of tariffs, but does she understand the bemusement of Northern Ireland Members? She talks strongly about sovereignty, but it was this House that diminished the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and placed us in the European Union customs code, and I hope she recognises that there is a double-edged sword when it comes to tariffs for Northern Ireland.

The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who will address Parliament tomorrow, said very clearly at the weekend that while he has heard what President Trump has said, he does not know what his aspirations are in relation to Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary?

I hope that everyone, not just in the United States Administration but throughout the United States, would agree that we should have shared aspirations for our shared security in the Arctic. We should recognise that that includes respect for sovereignty and for collective partnership. Addressing the Arctic security threat, much of which is maritime, depends on countries working together. It depends on an ability to address issues relating to the eastern end of the Arctic, northern Norway, the western end of the Arctic, and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Only through co-operation is it possible to keep the Atlantic safe, and to keep all our countries safe.

As possibly the only MP with American grandchildren, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary agrees that whatever disagreements may arise between this Government and the Government of the United States about Greenland, the bonds of friendship and kinship between the peoples of this island and the peoples of the United States are historic, vital and enduring?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the strength of our people-to-people bonds, but also the deep historical bonds and the continuing bonds of co-operation. Even today, the US and the UK have been discussing terrorism threats in northern Syria and the need to tackle Daesh. We have so many shared interests and a shared history, which is why it is so important that we pursue this disagreement in a robust and constructive way.

In pushing back against the tariffs, will the Foreign Secretary and others make it clear to the US that it is not just the potential imposition of these tariffs, but the bandying about of the threat of tariffs, that is so disruptive and difficult for major British businesses that export to the US, such as those in the Scotch whisky industry? The tariffs might be just game-playing or tactics, but they are causing real damage right now.

I agree with the right hon. Member about the impact that threats can have, and the instability that they can cause. Stability and respect in relationships is a crucial underpinning of the economy.

If this was truly a debate about the security of the Arctic, we would be talking about more than the sovereignty of Greenland, which is clearly a matter for the Danes and the people of Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that our collective interests and security are best served by working collectively through NATO, rather than creating division in that alliance, which will only help those who want to do us harm?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I saw for myself the immense co-operation between the Royal Marines Commandos and our Norwegian colleagues in the north of Norway. They briefed me on where the threats and concerns are, the way in which we need to respond to them, and the way in which the response in the north of Norway also helps with security right at the other side of the Atlantic, in the US and Canada.

Trump is certainly an unreliable and unpredictable ally, and his comments yesterday about the Norwegian leadership make us all wonder whether he is of sound mind, but what can we do? We have to deal with him.

I am sure it has not escaped the Foreign Secretary’s notice that the messaging from Congress is quite different from the messaging from the White House. Divisions were exposed in the passing of the Defence Appropriations Act before Christmas. Can she reassure me that conversations are being had, not just with the Administration but right across Congress, in which we have quite a lot of allies who are willing to support our position?

The hon. Member is right to say that there are many different perspectives across the US system, both in the Administration and in Congress. As he will know, we have always had very close engagement with all aspects of the US system, including Congress. Indeed, the House Speaker is in Parliament today.

I want to put on the record my gratitude for the leadership that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have shown on this issue as it evolves. Does she share my confusion about why Members of this House who claim to be patriots would join a party that blames NATO for starting the Ukraine war, that has a leader who admires Vladimir Putin, and that has a former leader in Wales who is serving 10 years in prison for taking Russian bribes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be very clear about where the threat to UK security comes from, the threat from Russia to our security—be it through the Arctic or through Ukraine—and the impact that has on Europe. Frankly, the fact that Members of this House who call themselves patriots have joined a party that is so soft on Russia is just astonishing.

Donald Trump rides roughshod over international law and international alliances. The PM has said that a trade war is in no one’s interests, but we all know that if you give ground to a bully, you get bullied even more. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that after a full year of attempting to appease Donald Trump, the strategy has comprehensively failed; that it is time to replace submission to the US with strength and solidarity with our European partners; and that the UK needs to make it clear to Donald Trump that there are red lines, and that if he engages in hostile activity towards the UK, it will have practical consequences, not least in trade?

The UK’s security is strengthened by the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance. I know that some want to reject Europe, and some want to reject the US and North America. We know that the transatlantic partnership keeps us safe and is crucial, which is why we believe in continuing with NATO. I know that some parties want to ditch it.

I welcome the calm and robust approach to our American allies from the Foreign Secretary, and from the Prime Minister this morning. State sovereignty, respect for territorial integrity and the right of self-determination have been the bedrock of global affairs since the end of world war two; indeed, it is why a Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression is so important for global stability. Can the Foreign Secretary set out how, in order to deter further Russian aggression, we are working with our Arctic partners—in Norway and Finland, for example—to further protect our own continent?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We are doubling the number of UK marines based in the north of Norway in the space of three years, we are jointly building frigates in order to strengthen our Arctic security, and we are working through NATO, through the coalition of the willing and with the US on security guarantees for Ukraine, because that is crucial to delivering a just and lasting peace.

The western world must remain united to keep us all safe from both Russia and China. Regrettably, we are far from united right now, and many of our constituents will be concerned about the risk to our country and critical infrastructure. At the same time as trying to reinvigorate our relationships with our NATO partners, should our worst-case planning assumption be that the USA may not be by our side if and when we need it in the future? If it was not clear before this week, surely it is clear now that spending on defence must rise immediately to at least 3% of GDP. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence spending for many years. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Conservative Government, the level of investment in defence did not reach 2.5% of GDP throughout their period in office and the defence infrastructure was hollowed out for too long. It is right that we invest in it for the future, but it is also right that we build our partnerships.

As the Foreign Secretary has alluded to, the 1951 agreement allows the US to construct and operate military bases across Greenland, house personnel, and control the movement of ships and aircraft. Will she do all she can to urge US counterparts to use that agreement to provide enhanced protection for NATO’s northern borders and to drop the outrageous threat of tariffs, which is causing very damaging uncertainty for our industry? If implemented, they would not only hit our industry but further fuel inflation for the US consumer.

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The 1951 agreement has huge flexibility and provides for considerable joint working between the US, Denmark and Greenland on strengthening security in that part of the Arctic. I know that many countries will be keen to work with them on exactly that, which is why we think the talks that began last week between the Danish Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State and Vice-President were an important opportunity to explore the 1951 treaty.

We have long had deep interests and partnerships with the US that go back many years. The engagement the Prime Minister has led with the US Administration and the President has led to important results, including billions of pounds of tech investment in the UK and crucial security co-operation—for example, on Ukraine, with the development of security guarantees in support of the work of the coalition of the willing. However, this is an issue on which we strongly disagree, and the Prime Minister has made that absolutely clear. We will be very direct about the areas on which we disagree, and we will set those out. We will also work intensively with our allies to address them, because the sovereignty of Greenland is a vital principle that we will defend.

President Trump’s threats to Greenland must be taken very seriously. Given Trump’s banditry in Venezuela, I fear the Prime Minister’s hopes of “calm discussion” may fall on deaf ears. Will the Government stand firm with our European allies and the people of Greenland in opposing rampant American territorial expansionism?

We work closely with our European allies, which is exactly why I have had discussions with the Danish Foreign Minister today. I have also had discussions with the US Secretary of State today, and we will have further discussions. It is also why the Prime Minister has had discussions with European leaders and President Trump. However, I say to my hon. Friend that the role of the Government is to pursue the UK’s interests in a calm, robust and hard-headed way, which is about getting results and ensuring that we build the partnerships, including with the US and with Europe, that make all of us stronger together.

Trump and Putin both respect strength; neither of them respects international law. In the light of that, I welcome the work undertaken by the Prime Minister and leaders from Canada and Europe on the coalition of the willing. The Secretary of State has outlined what we are doing to strengthen our capabilities and those of our neighbours, but can she explain how the coalition of the willing will become the coalition of the capable to make us stronger?

I thank the hon. Member for his support for the coalition of the willing. He will know that the UK and France set out a declaration of intent, and further work is under way on the security guarantees. I caution him against drawing an equivalence between the US and Russia, which I hope he did not mean to do, because it is obviously Russia that poses a significant threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe, while the US is a long-standing and close ally in defending security in Europe.

I thank the Secretary of State for the strong statement she has made. I have been disappointed to hear so much politicisation of a national security issue in this House, but can she confirm that, just as the future of Ukraine should be determined by the Ukrainians, the future of Greenland should be determined by Denmark and the Greenlanders?

My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, underpinned by the UN charter, but also by the rules underpinning so many of our alliances, including the NATO alliance. At the heart of this is the very simple principle that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but in all sincerity can I ask her how, as per her statement, she intends to have

“serious and constructive dialogue…built on respect”

and rules with a man who wants to drop peace and go to war simply because he did not win a prize?

In NATO, we have a long-standing alliance—a long-standing partnership—not just with the US, but with western Europe, and we continue to discuss with the US the issues affecting peace around the world. I would give the hon. Member the example of Sudan, which I do not think has had the level of international attention it needs. However, the US is putting in considerable efforts to seek a ceasefire in Sudan, and the UK is working not just with the US, but with other members of the Quad to support a desperately needed ceasefire.

Last week, I was delighted to lead a debate on the very topic of the High North and Arctic security, highlighting that, because of our geography, the UK should be considered a frontline nation in the ongoing war with Vladimir Putin and that we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as a frontline nation, we must urgently increase public awareness of the threat we face and the effect that will have on our constituents? Will she discuss with the Defence Secretary and our allies the possibility of urgently increasing the capability of the joint expeditionary force to defend both the UK and our High North allies? I know that would be welcomed by countries such as Estonia, which I visited at the start of the year.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Increasing our presence in the north of Norway—increasing the number of marines from 1,000 to 2,000 over three years—helps support the joint expeditionary force. It is also a crucial part of our co-operation across not just the Arctic, but the Baltic, and that work was welcomed in both Finland and Norway, where I was last week.

President Trump has stated that he no longer feels an obligation to think “purely of Peace”. He has threatened a trade war with the UK and Europe, and he has refused to rule out military force against Greenland. This shows that President Trump and his Administration cannot be trusted. Will the Government therefore consider a review of the UK’s intelligence sharing with the US at this very dangerous and volatile time, and until Trump is no longer in power?

Let me be really clear with the hon. Member: our Five Eyes intelligence and security partnership is vital and keeps us safe. It keeps us safe every single day of the week and every single day of the year, and that is vital. It is particularly close with the United States, but it is also with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and our security depends on sustaining and continuing that Five Eyes partnership.

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their clarity today on the future of Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, while recent comments from the United States have generated understandable concern, the correct response is not panic or escalation, but calm diplomacy grounded in the clear, simple principle that Greenland’s future is a matter for the Greenlandic people? Does she also agree that the real strategic challenge in the High North remains Russia, with its militarisation and aggression, which NATO must continue to confront together as partners, not opponents, of the United States?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be purposeful in our response. It is for all of us to recognise that the greatest threat to UK security, as well as to European security and North American security, does come from Russia. We have shared alliances, and the US is a close partner in strengthening our security against Russia.

I absolutely agree with the sanctity of territorial integrity and how fundamental it is to sovereignty. Indeed, those principles provide a powerful basis to challenge the US’s posturing. I do not at all dissent from the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I am intrigued as to how this Government are properly so exercised about America’s disrespect for the territorial integrity of Greenland, but so disinterested about the disrespect of the territorial integrity of our own country, whereby the European Union imposes its laws, as on a colony, in 300 areas of law on a part of the United Kingdom and insists on an international customs border to partition this United Kingdom. Now that the Government have got hold of the importance of territorial integrity, can we look forward to their reasserting it in respect of our own country?

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman’s views, but the Windsor framework was about sustaining the Good Friday agreement, which was a shared agreement underpinned by principles and peace.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her statement, as well as to the Government for their commitment to Arctic security and recognition of the threats that we face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the partnership with Norway—that includes the £10 billion contract for Type 26 frigates secured by this Government and set to be delivered on the Clyde, including by some of my constituents—makes clear that, beyond the rhetoric we are hearing at present, the Government are absolutely committed to playing their part within NATO to uphold our collective global responsibilities?

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the £10 billion contract. That will support thousands of jobs in his constituency and across the UK. It is driven not just by the strength of our defence industry, but crucially, by the strength of our joint co-operation with Norway and the shared operations we will be able to take forward in future.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and her commitment to Greenland, which is not for sale. President Trump’s threat of tariffs is an alarming escalation and strange behaviour from someone who the Foreign Secretary describes as a close ally. France and Germany have suggested imposing retaliatory tariffs, but our Prime Minister has dismissed this. He says that he does not want to start a trade war with the US. Could the Foreign Secretary tell the House which side the UK will be on, if our European friends and neighbours decide to pursue this retaliatory course of action?

We have always been clear that a trade war between any nation—certainly between the US and European countries—is deeply damaging and not in anyone’s interest. That is why our first priority right now should be to stop this happening and stop the tariffs, and to build a shared sense of security.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should send a message of reassurance to our children and young people, who will undoubtedly be feeling concerned and scared about the developments in the Arctic and Greenland, and more broadly regarding our international system? Does she agree that they know instinctively that international co-operation, standing up for our allies, international friendship and defending a rules-based system is the right way for our world? Does she agree that they should take some reassurance from the fact that our Government, this House and our allies agree with them?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s framing of this around the interests of our young people and the values of shared co-operation. It is co-operation with allies that makes us stronger.

I commend the Government for standing firm with our European allies in supporting the principle that the future of Greenland is a matter for her people and her people alone. I know that the Government will make every diplomatic effort to avoid the imposition of these punitive tariffs, but if they were to be imposed upon us, will it be the policy of the Government to pursue a co-ordinated approach with our European allies in any countermeasures that may prove necessary?

At all stages, we have discussions and co-ordination with our allies, but the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that our focus has to be on preventing a trade war and additional tariffs being introduced, and on building a constructive approach to our shared security.

How many times do my Lib Dem colleagues and I need to come to the House and tell the Government that Trump cannot be trusted? His behaviour is that of a spoilt child, bullying his allies while looking to swell the coffers of those closest to him. By working with our European partners in NATO, we must persuade Trump that his aggressive approach to Greenland and the threats of tariffs is not acceptable behaviour from our closest ally. I ask the Foreign Secretary to try to persuade the Prime Minister that we need to stand up to this bully in the White House before he causes untold damage to the UK and to Europe.

The job of Government is to pursue the UK national interest and build alliances to work with our allies both in the US and in Europe to promote the UK’s prosperity, our security and our values. We do that in a serious, hard-headed way, and not in the way that, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have taken.

To say the very least, Donald Trump’s actions in Greenland and the related sanctions on the UK are not befitting of a trustworthy ally. Does the Foreign Secretary now accept that President Trump does not respond to weakness, and that, as Canada has shown, we must stand firm against this bullying behaviour and, as the Liberal Democrats have argued for months, work more closely with our EU allies?

Again, I would say that our strength, security and prosperity depend on things such as the NATO alliance, in which we work closely with our North American allies—the US and Canada—and our European allies. That strong relationship, and the fact that the UK works so strongly at the heart of that relationship, as opposed to rejecting one side or another, is what makes us stronger.

President Trump questioned the Danish right of ownership of Greenland, saying:

“There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago”.

Although Trump may today be challenging Greenland, on that basis, what assurance can the Foreign Secretary give that our overseas territories and those of our other allies would not come under a similar challenge from President Trump?

We have been very clear that the principle of sovereignty—of territorial integrity—is fundamental. That is why the Prime Minister has made clear our strong disagreement with President Trump on this issue, the importance of issues such as Arctic security being collective, and that threats are no way to treat allies.

The Prime Minister insists that a trade war is in no one’s interest, yet we know that the US has declared sanctions on our economy, in spite of the so-called special relationship. If these sanctions come to pass, can the Secretary of State say what concrete measures will be put in place to protect UK businesses from their detrimental effects?

The Prime Minister has already discussed this issue with President Trump and made clear our position, and we are working through diplomacy and continued different avenues to stress the importance of respecting sovereignty, collective security, and the fact that tariffs benefit no one and are completely wrong in this situation.

The Secretary of State has rightly outlined the importance of co-operation with our allies over this serious issue, but as we have seen, there is not a consistent approach on retaliatory tariffs. Can she describe to the House the discussions that the UK Government had with our European allies before ruling out retaliatory tariffs?

The UK is continuing to hold discussions with European allies, exactly as I have been doing today with the Danish Foreign Minister, and as the Prime Minister has been doing throughout the weekend. He also made clear our strong view to President Trump and the US that we need to prevent these tariffs in the first place, and that we need to take action together to make sure that that happens.

Exactly two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary told me that I was quite wrong to describe Donald Trump as a threat to liberal democracy. Since then, we have seen the horrifying shooting of Renee Good, trumped-up charges against the chair of the Federal Reserve, and direct threats to Denmark and this country. I understand that the Foreign Secretary cannot publicly agree with me, but if the Government are serious, why are we not seriously re-arming, especially when that will help our economy anyway? Is the Foreign Secretary worried that the hour is getting too late to act?

I think the question the hon. Member raises is about the increase in defence spending, which is exactly what we are doing. We are investing—we are introducing the most substantial increase in defence spending for many years. Defence infrastructure was hollowed out under previous Governments, and that is exactly why we are increasing investment now.

A week or so ago I asked the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box: where was the red line? What was the Rubicon that would have to be crossed to lead the UK to hang together with our values-based allies in opposition to the imperialist ambitions of Donald Trump? I have to confess that I felt a brief moment of pride yesterday when I thought that Rubicon had been reached, but I have been filled with increasing fear today. I fear that we might again allow ourselves to be picked off, that we might allow ourselves again to prostrate ourselves in front of the President as we beg not to be treaded upon. So, I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what is the Rubicon that would have to be crossed? This is not just an academic question. We are, through our overseas territories in the Caribbean and in the south Atlantic, a western hemispheric nation. Is the red line the Falkland Islands?

I just say to the hon. Member that what we have seen from our Prime Minister is a serious level of international leadership that is immensely important: a robust and hard-headed approach to the UK’s national interests that is the way we achieve results and have achieved results in a series of different areas. He set out this morning the principles that guide us, including the strong defence of the principle of sovereignty, and that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and for the Danes to decide.

The Foreign Secretary has talked a lot about military co-operation today, less so about economic security co-operation. She will remember that the Prime Minister abolished the National Security Council sub-committee on economic security. I was pleased that the Minister with responsibility for economic security was here for a time, but he is not part of the National Security Council. How are these economic security questions and co-ordination with partners being handled and managed in Government?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the Foreign Secretary, I take economic security issues immensely seriously. It is why we are strengthening the work around critical minerals and the economic security that comes from international supply chains. He will know that there are issues around critical national infrastructure that also underpin our economic security. This is taken immensely seriously right across the Government, including on the National Security Council.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience in getting us all in; it is much appreciated. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I agree that the sovereignty of Greenland is a matter for her own people, but I understand the dangers present, with the Russian threat and aggression. Rather than simply making statements of support for Greenland’s sovereignty, will the Foreign Secretary outline how we in this country, as close allies of the USA and as a nation that relies on the security of that area, will liaise with the USA and Greenland on enhancements of security and greater strategic facilitation, recognising that diplomacy is more than words but action, and actively seek solutions we can achieve?

This is an important question to finish on, because the UK is proposing an new Arctic sentry as part of NATO. We already have a Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry that pull together operations and co-ordination in a strategic way to look at the defence of those regions and how all NATO allies can pull together to support that. We believe the same is now needed for the Arctic. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to threaten the whole of the transatlantic alliance. That is why we believe an Arctic sentry would be in everyone’s interests.