A Better Defence Estate

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend does not do social media—very wise. I will send him a pigeon with the information.

Let me take this opportunity, if I may, to say that if there are veterans wishing to participate and to return to Normandy for this incredible anniversary, a facility has been made available by the MOD, working with Royal British Legion, and we very much look forward to it.

My right hon. Friend touches on the financial packages. He is aware that the PFI model is being moved away from. We do seek recognition from the Treasury that, if it is not a financial vehicle that it wants to continue to use, we will need other support, and I hope that will be forthcoming in the spending review.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I agree with the Minister on the D-day landing commemorations. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention yet again during a defence statement the civilians who died in my home town in the Clydebank blitz. It is the 78th anniversary next week, when I will be joining my community at the mass grave in Dalnottar cemetery—one of two.

I am grateful to have had early sight of the statement. I am delighted, as I am sure other Members in the House will be, about the commitment to RM Condor. I know that my colleague Graeme Dey, the Veterans Minister in Scotland, as well as the local MSP, will be delighted as well.

Yet I have to say that we need to look at the recommendations in the National Audit Report, and the statement is less a commitment than an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand, given the complexity of the issues—not only housing and the estate, but the equipment plan—faced by the Ministry of Defence. In reply to the Opposition lead, the Minister mentioned communities, and communities being able to inform the debate on policy is also about being able to hear directly from members of the armed forces.

The issues that the estate has faced are complex, as the Defence Committee knows—the Chair is in their rightful place—because the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces raised these issues before the Select Committee this week. The biggest issue that members of the armed forces face relates to terms and conditions—money and the way in which they live. That is profoundly disappointing, as I know that last week the Minister stated in response to a question from me that he does not see members of the armed forces as employees. Will he reconsider the Government’s position on the ability of members of the armed forces to engage with the Government, and on whether an armed forces representative body should be set on a statutory footing?

There is grave concern that, although some of these measures are welcome, numbers of armed forces personnel in Scotland are still 25% below the commitment made in 2014. Can the Minister say how this issue will lead to an improvement in the terms and conditions of the armed forces, for example in housing? If housing is to be brought to the fore, I hope that at least in Scotland it will meet the Scottish housing standard. If it does, we might find an improvement across the rest of the UK.

I noted that the Minister made no commitment about Fort George, and there was a lack of commitment to Rosyth, as well as the continued diminution of the RAF footprint in the highlands. Why are the Government opposed to an armed forces representative body that would assist them in understanding the terms and conditions that the ombudsman highlighted in the Defence Committee? Will the Minister guarantee the future of the RAF footprint in the highlands and Fort George as well as in Rosyth, and will he commit, as I asked earlier, to ensuring that housing for the armed forces in Scotland meets the 2015 Scottish housing quality standard ?

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s questions and his party’s interest in these matters—perhaps we could meet and discuss them in more detail. He raised issues of representation that he has raised before, and our views on that issue have not changed. I will say that Scotland fares well from our defence posture as a representative nation. Our fast jets will continue to operate from RAF Lossiemouth, and the P-8As are being moved there as well. The Army is well represented at Leuchars Station, and there is Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde—the hon. Gentleman will be thrilled to know that our nuclear deterrent continues to be operated from that neck of the woods, and indeed, all submarines will be moving to those quarters. He welcomes the continuation of 45 Commando at Condor, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that she will give her views on that. She has campaigned hard on that issue, and it was a huge pleasure to visit the marines there, and to see the real estate and its importance. I am pleased that we are able to retain that asset for the Royal Marines.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The high north is an important part of the development of our strategy. At the weekend, I had the opportunity to see our Royal Marines in Norway and what they are doing to support the Norwegian armed forces. We will be deploying our P-8s in 2020, along with Norway and the United States, to deal with the increased threat that we face from Russian submarines in the north Atlantic.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I add the condolences of those on the Scottish National party Benches to the family of Paul Flynn and to the parliamentary Labour party on the loss of a thoroughly decent human being.

The Secretary of State and his predecessors have been clear that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s security, but many leading experts, including Professor Beatrice Heuser of the University of Glasgow, see something of a devil in the detail. Much of the recent debate on Churchill missed out the fact that he was one of the architects of the Western European Union—a security-focused grouping that saw all its functions wound up into the European Union post Lisbon. Can the Secretary of State tell us what analysis his Department has undertaken on the difference between the UK’s obligations under article 5 of the NATO treaty and article 42(7) of the Lisbon treaty?

[Gavin Williamson]

Article 5 is a mechanism that delivers security right across continental Europe and the north Atlantic area. That has been proven. Article 5 has only been used in one situation, which was following 9/11, and we feel that it is a much more substantial guarantee of European security than what is in the Lisbon treaty.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful for that response. I am glad that the Secretary of State visited NATO and the Royal Marines during their winter warfare training, and I know that the Norwegians and many members of the Defence Committee will be too. Article 5 obligates members to respond to an attack with

“such action as it deems necessary”,

which, as put to me, could mean a conventional military response, just as it could mean a strongly worded letter. Article 42(7) of the Lisbon treaty, on the other hand, obligates states to react with

“all the means in their power”.

Does the Secretary of State understand that many of our European allies are unnerved by this dilution of the UK’s obligation towards the defence of the continent? What preparations are being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that our adversaries do not exploit that loophole?

Defence

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), whose constituency is just across the border from mine.

This is a very important debate, although it may not seem so to some Members who are watching it outside the Chamber. Two members of the Defence Committee are present: its Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). He and I have similar surnames; I will leave it at that.

The Minister set out the requirements for our armed forces, although I wish he had faced the Chamber while he was making his speech; that would have made things a wee bit easier. He told us what was required for the systems of command, discipline and justice, as well as designating the remit of the services police for the jurisdiction of the powers of commanding officers and the military. On a personal level, I fundamentally get that. I have a brother who served both in Iraq and twice in Afghanistan, and I know that the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is a submariner. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, submariners constitute a section of the armed forces that is seldom mentioned. Many elements of the armed forces do not have a voice, including the medical element, which provides services on the battlefield that save lives—not just those of our own wounded, but even those of adversaries.

I will be brief, because I know that others want to speak. The Minister said that members of the armed forces were not employees. I think that, in the 21st century, that is a dreadful situation. We hear a lot about the state of housing for members of the armed forces and their families, and we hear a lot about pay, which the Minister also mentioned, but where is the voice of the armed forces when it comes to improving those elements?

We are told about the service families who do such a fantastic job—some of them recently gave evidence to the Defence Committee—but when it comes to employee rights, we need a armed forces representative body. That is what my hon. Friends, at least, believe, and indeed, during Defence questions, not only my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West but a Labour Member called for it. It would not have the ability to strike—no one would call for that—but it should be possible, in the 21st century, for members of the armed forces to be able to call themselves employees and to enter into negotiations with their employer. That is possible in many of our NATO allied armed forces systems. It is disappointing that that is not mentioned in the statutory instrument—but of course it would not be, because it is an element that has to be gone through every couple of years—but I hope that the Minister and some of his team, and perhaps Labour Members as well, will be in the Chamber on 8 March, when I will present a private Member’s Bill on the establishment of a representative body, thus making a commitment to my party’s manifesto.

I think it important that we recognise the service given by members of the armed forces. As was pointed out by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), we should recognise that service not only in the context of military capability, but in the context of the assistance that they provide through peacekeeping. I often reminded myself of these words:

“Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I do not know how to follow that, but I will try. The Secretary of State has been waxing lyrical about the fleet ready escort being based on England’s southern coast to deal with this phantom menace of mass immigration, with no plans for basing OPVs in Scotland, as he admitted to me in parliamentary questions. So will the Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, advise the House as to whether they have received any representation from the Scottish Conservative cohort in this House about basing fishery protection vessels anywhere remotely near Scotland?

[Mark Lancaster]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he seems to be confusing a number of different issues. The role of the fleet ready escort is certainly very different from that in which HMS Mersey is currently being engaged, as indeed is fishery protection, which is a matter devolved to the Scottish Government.

Modernising Defence Programme

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his review on promoting prosperity through defence. Investment in capabilities, whether it involves ships, jets or land vehicles, is a real driver in the creation of jobs and investment, and the MOD is one of the largest departmental investors in science. We want to think about how we can leverage that more and more. We have seen some fantastic orders over the last year, including a £5 billion order from Qatar and a £20 billion order from Australia for a new frigate. Another great success has been the potential for a large order from the Canadians. However, we will continue to ensure prosperity is at the very heart of everything that we do. Some of the best examples of what British products can achieve is demonstrated through what our armed forces do with them.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The report on the modernising defence programme, which I endorsed as a member of the Defence Committee, said:

“The force structure that emerges from the MDP must be supported by a robust and sustainable financial settlement”.

Can the Secretary of State point sceptics like myself in the direction of the section of the report that he has placed in the Library, so that we can judge for ourselves whether his Department seems likely to deliver the “sustainable and affordable” settlement that he promised a year ago?

[Gavin Williamson]

We have already made it absolutely clear that the defence budget will increase, and that by 2021 it will amount to £40 billion. That is a commitment that has been made by my party, and we are delivering on it. It would be interesting to hear what defence spending commitments Opposition parties are willing to make.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

This issue was raised in the debates on the veterans strategy that we had a couple of weeks ago and on the covenant. It is very important that all local authorities recognise their responsibility in meeting their objectives for the covenant, and I encourage every hon. Member in this House to visit their local authority and ask who their armed forces champion is—who the person is who is supposed to be there to make sure we are meeting the objectives, which include looking after those requiring housing or needing help because they are homeless.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am sure the Minister is aware that the Secretary of State said recently that they are the armed forces shop steward, so I wonder why the Government disagree that armed forces personnel, including those transitioning into civilian life, would be better served by real shop stewards elected by an armed forces representative body.

[Mr Ellwood]

I put my hands up and say that we still need to work further on this—I made that clear in the debate as well—but the covenant is moving forward; we are holding other Government Departments to account, and I hope that will be made clearer when we report back on our findings next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter, but, of course, as I look across this Chamber, I do wonder whether or not this was the right establishment to be criticising the British Army for obesity. Every year, all soldiers are required to carry out fitness tests. He will have realised, or seen, that from 1 April we are changing that annual fitness test to make sure it is more aligned with the combat roles our soldiers are required to carry out.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Gosh, there is something of an internal Scottish National party competition. It is an invidious choice between three celebrated individuals, one of whom is a member of the Select Committee. I call Martin Docherty-Hughes.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me say that I agree with the Secretary of State that we should be mindful of the armistice we commemorate this year. I will be joining family at Westminster abbey later this year to commemorate my great uncle James from County Mayo, who fell at Passchendaele.

Asbestos kills, and it is a silent killer. I represent a constituency with the highest rates of mesothelioma not only in Scotland or the United Kingdom, but in Europe. I was therefore dumbfounded at a recent Defence Committee meeting when senior members of the Ministry of Defence seemed to be silent and unable to answer questions on the use of asbestos in Sea King helicopters between 1969 and 2016. I have even heard that two of them have been brought back into service for training purposes. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that the report that has been brought about is fully published and that we ensure that those exposed to asbestos, both civilian and military, get due compensation, if affected?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to bring this issue up. I am starting to look at it in more detail. If he would allow me, I would like to write to him with further details, once I have had more information from the Department.

Draft Armed Forces (Terms of Service) (Amendments Relating to Flexible Working) Regulations 2018

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 General Committees

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I welcome the draft regulations, and I do not think there will be any disagreement about their approval.

As someone who comes from a forces family—my brother is in the Royal Scots and my nephew has just passed out from the Royal Engineers—I am very aware of how a flexible approach to service can improve not only recruitment but retention, as the hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned. I am also aware of its impact on readiness, which was discussed only a few moments ago.

For those who do not know it, flexible working actually works. One needs to look only across the North sea at the kingdom of Denmark, where it works so well that people find it difficult to leave the armed forces. Not only does Denmark have good recruitment, but the arrangements are so good that people actually want to stay in the armed forces. We have recruitment and retention challenges at the moment, so I am sure everyone welcomes the approach the Minister outlined. We must be clear that it builds on the commitments in the 2015 SDSR, and I hope it is continued in the fast-approaching 2020 SDSR, which is not as far away as everyone thinks.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am slightly confused. Although I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s positive approach to the draft regulations—I loved his comparison with Denmark, which I know well—I do not see how these changes would work with the Scottish army if Scotland became independent.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The last time I looked, this was the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which has enough problems with retention and recruitment. One need only come to the meeting of the Select Committee on Defence next door in 10 minutes to find out about the issues with defence recruitment and retention. The Minister himself eloquently discussed those issues in front of that Committee, for which he is to be commended. After independence, I will be more than happy to come and give evidence as a Member of an independent sovereign Parliament at Holyrood.

Before I was sidelined by that diversionary tactic, I was going to say that the draft regulations show a sense of forward thinking from the Minister and his officials. They show how we can make changes to people’s quality of life. In the context of the problems with CarillionAmey, housing and so on, this is one area in which we have stepped forward to recognise that flexible working can improve the lives of service personnel, regardless of gender, and those of their families.

It would be ridiculous for me to say we do not still have far to go. For instance, this is the only state in Europe in which serving personnel do not have a contract. It would also be remiss of me not to say that although this is a great step forward, I hope Ministers and other Members will support my private Member’s Bill on an armed forces representative body, which would allow our armed forces to speak with one strong voice, when it comes to the Floor of the House in November. However, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the draft regulations.

Counter-Daesh Update

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We have worked incredibly closely with the Syrian defence forces over a period of time, as have other coalition allies. We are working closely with the United States and France to get a dialogue going between the Syrian defence forces and Turkey to ensure that there is no conflict of the form that my right hon. Friend suggests.[Official Report, 5 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 2MC.]

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and of course, in the first instance, welcome the progress being made towards the eradication of what is a most despicable and cowardly terrorist organisation. I commend those Members of the armed forces who have been a part of that. However, it is imperative that the House is given a clear idea of what the Secretary of State sees as UK strategy in the region, especially if we are not to repeat the mistakes that allowed the vacuum from which Daesh emerged to be recreated elsewhere.

As the Secretary of State mentioned, following the damage wrought by Daesh in Iraq, the Iraqi Government asked the international community for some $88 billion, yet, at February’s conference for the reconstruction of Iraq in Kuwait, less than half that figure was raised. SNP Members are fully supportive of the £2.71 billion of aid that the Government have already provided, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that others will need to step up as well. Does he accept that failing to invest adequately in reconstruction risks allowing Daesh back in through the back door?

On a broader point, the Secretary of State spoke about the number of forces who are deployed to fight against Daesh, but what he neglected to mention was that many of those will be special forces whose operational assignments almost always escape adequate scrutiny from the House. Can he tell us, therefore, how the House can hold the Government to account in future when so many of the day-to-day operations are carried out in this way? Finally, given the emerging case of Daesh using drone technology, what actions are the Government taking to counter that not only in the battle zone, but in the possible use by Daesh outside of it?

[Gavin Williamson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not comment on the activity of special forces, but we are absolutely committed to keeping this House regularly updated on our operations in Iraq and Syria. He talks about the recovery in the region and touches on what the Iraqi Government were looking for with regard to support. The international community has come forward with $30 billion-worth of support. It is vital that the British Government do all they can to encourage that support to come forward swiftly, so that the Iraqi people get the benefit of it. We are starting to see some very positive signs in the Iraqi economy, with a recovery and increased private sector investment, and that is the true driver to Iraq’s future. We should not underestimate the amount of oil wealth in Iraq in ensuring that we do all we can to help the Iraqi Government to benefit from that wealth and, more importantly, that the people of Iraq benefit from that wealth, too.

NATO

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

That is very generous of you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If the opening speeches in this debate are anything to go by, I think that the temperature will be very similar to that of the first two debates and show a welcome unanimity on both sides of the House about the importance of defence investment in peacetime to ensure that we minimise the chances of conflict breaking out.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to the importance of investing in the whole range of conventional capabilities. As far as I can see, that is common ground among all the main parties in this House, even though there are differences of opinion about the nuclear dimension. The difficulty that we face is that defence investment costs a lot of money, and defence inflation has been running ahead of defence investment. As a result, we repeatedly hear phrases such as “hollowing out” and “black holes in the budget”. It was useful that she said that she felt that defence investment, in real terms, had fallen by about £10 billion.

I do not think I am giving away anything more than I should by saying that in a few days’ time the Defence Committee will publish a new report entitled, “Indispensable Allies?”, referring to the defence relationship between the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO. In that report, we do some calculations and projections about defence investment. We can see that at every level at which we estimate gross domestic product to grow over the next few years, an extra 0.5% of GDP equates, roughly speaking, to £10 billion. That is why when my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) referred to the need to move towards 2.5% or 3% of GDP, we understood the sorts of figures that we are aiming to achieve.

It was slightly unfortunate that when we published our most recent report, “Beyond 2 per cent”, a few days ago, it coincided with the welcome announcement that £20 billion will be found for investment in the national health service. As I said in an intervention, while we obviously welcome the investment that is made in other high-spending Departments, it is important to remember how defence used to compare with those other calls on our Exchequer. At the time of the cold war in the 1980s, which is in the memory of most of us sitting in this House today, we spent roughly the same on health, on education and on defence. Now we spend multiples more on activities other than defence. Indeed, welfare—on which we used to spend 6% in the 1960s, just as we spent 6% on defence at that time—now takes up six times as much of our national wealth as does defence. So it is fairly easy to see that, by any standard of comparison, defence has fallen down the scale of our national priorities.

We have been very focused on Europe today because of the debate that took place immediately prior to this debate. It is worth reminding ourselves of the steps that led to the foundation of NATO. This may come as a slight surprise to some Members, but it actually goes back to the end of 1941, when three small European countries, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands—who had all been overrun by Nazi Germany and whose Foreign Ministers were taking shelter in London—made an approach to the British Foreign Office. They said, “We’ve tried being neutral. We’ve tried keeping out of power politics. It has failed. Our countries have been occupied by brutal aggressors. When this terrible war is over, we want Britain to have permanent military bases on our territory so that we can never be caught out like this again.” It was from that invitation given to the United Kingdom to base military forces in countries that had put their trust in pacifism and neutralism, and had that trust betrayed, that NATO ultimately came into existence.

The Secretary of State began by paying tribute to the people who made the ultimate sacrifice in a time of war. It is certainly the case that when a war breaks out, there is no shortage of people willing to make that sacrifice, and what is more, there is no shortage of money to be invested in fighting and winning that conflict. The question that always faces us is what to do in peacetime. There is a paradox of peacetime preparedness, if Members will excuse the alliteration, which is that we prepare by investing in armed forces that we hope will never be used. That is what we have to do, and it is a difficult battle to fight to persuade people in peacetime to invest money in things that we hope we will not have to send into action.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

In terms of future investment in something that we do not want to have to use, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that some of that future investment could be lost through dollar dependency in the equipment plan, meaning that any additional moneys coming from the Government would be lost and have no long-term benefit?

[Dr Lewis]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman, who is a valued member of the Defence Committee, has argued that point consistently on the Committee. The Government certainly need to bear that in mind when placing orders for expensive new equipment, at least during a period of uncertainty when there is doubt that the pound will hold its value against another currency.

In conclusion, we have an opportunity in this NATO summit to show that we are leading by example. It was never the case that we were anywhere near the NATO minimum of defence expenditure. It was always the case that we were second only to the Americans. We must try to restore that situation, and that means raising more money for defence and spending more money on defence. Spending 2.5% of GDP will restore us to where we were a few years ago; 3% of GDP should be our target, because only that way can we be ready for the threats that sadly face us today and show no sign whatever of diminishing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I pay a genuine and generous tribute to him, as I am sure my SNP colleagues do, for the work he has done in his party and as a member of the Defence Committee to bring attention to that part of the world. It is a seriously testing issue that, to be fair, is understood by the Defence Secretary, and is certainly understood by Sir Stuart Peach and General Sir Nick Carter. I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for taking the time to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) to discuss these issues. We now live in hope that the high north and Icelandic gap will be a prominent feature of the upcoming modernising defence programme.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is heartening to hear the Secretary of State for Defence recognise, in the modernising defence programme, unlike in previous SDSRs, that this is actually an island and that we are moving forward in the high north and the north Atlantic?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, indeed. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State mentioned that previous SDSRs made no mention of Russia and, indeed, that the most recent one made no mention of the fact that Britain is an island, and these things really matter.

As I have mentioned, NATO now faces external and internal threats—the latter is wholly unprecedented—but it faces them against the backdrop of an entirely broken United Nations Security Council. It is regrettable that, despite repeated calls from the Opposition Benches urging the Government to knock heads together and return some order to the Security Council, they still do not appear to have done so. What of the internal threat? The US President has long criticised the alliance for the amount that the United States contributes. That has been adumbrated by the Secretary of State, and I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). She made a valuable point, but at the same time, we cannot ignore the White House, although I appreciate her expertise as a Member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

It is not a new occurrence that the United States provides almost three quarters of direct contributions to NATO, and a substantial amount of indirect contributions on top of that. This has been a source of ire for the Trump Administration, who have openly accused other member states of not pulling their weight. So all eyes will indeed be on Brussels this month. Will the President come in like a wrecking ball, or will he come in as an opportunist, seeking to improve relations after an incredibly testing G7 summit?

Last week at Defence questions, the Secretary of State emphasised Secretary Mattis’s explicit and unwavering commitment to NATO and to European defence. That would be somewhat encouraging if only it were reflected in the discourse of President Trump, who continues to lambast the alliance through the lens of his “America First” politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said earlier, this debate could have been tabled at any time over the coming weeks, so I wonder whether the Government have allowed this debate to go ahead today in order to make Her Majesty’s Opposition feel slightly uncomfortable and to draw the team of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to the Dispatch Box to talk in glowing terms about an organisation that he clearly does not feel particularly warm towards.

It also obviously serves the Government’s agenda to talk about how they do not intend to neglect European security after Brexit, but I cannot but feel that, in this week of all weeks, they may have inadvertently drawn attention to the relationship with the United States. Atlanticism is a noble virtue and no one on these Benches would underestimate the importance of a strong relationship with the United States, but any country’s national interest must be dictated by carefully balancing our own interest with those of our allies, which are not always the same. Like the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), I recognise that, while on Capitol Hill there is much support for NATO, the emboldened actions of the Trump Administration, not just last week, have shown us that—just as with Suez, just as with Vietnam, and just as with decolonisation—a UK Government cannot solely rely on the unequivocal support of the United States, no matter how much they may wish it; that is a historical reality.

I have noted this at other times in this place but it bears repeating: every presidential Administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower have made European security and integration a major priority. It is with no great relish that I note that the current Administration do not see it as a priority. I rather fear our own Government are simply deciding to hold hands and walk off into an unsure future.

In my party’s submission to the modernising defence programme consultation, we made it clear that this Government’s commitment to the north Atlantic must be explicitly stated and, dare I say it, that it must be about a lot more than just NATO. I am sure we all agree that, if NATO did not exist, we would have to invent it. So a commitment to NATO must be a commitment to work as closely as possible with those allies around us in the north Atlantic—those countries such as the kingdom of Norway and the kingdom of Denmark whose invasions during the second world war made imperative the existence of NATO, and whose continued existence as sovereign countries has greatly enhanced the international rules-based system that we must continue to protect.

NATO may be—to borrow every Brexiteer’s favourite truism—the cornerstone of our security but, from my perspective, the European Union has been the economic and social cement that has held it in place. This of course does not mean that all will fall around us, but it will make for more instability than we require. A state’s security is not simply measured by the number of people it can deploy under arms, by how many jets it has or by how many frigates protect its shores. It is also measured in the strength of our economy, the stability of our geographical neighbourhood and the ease with which we can do business there. Let me finish with this appeal to state interest. NATO has served European and Atlantic security extremely well over the last 70 years, and I fear that we are going to need it even more in future. Let us also remember that simply to praise its name is no substitute for understanding why the north Atlantic treaty was signed all those years ago.