Defence Spending: Scotland

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Scotland is crucial to the defence of the United Kingdom, but beyond that is the importance of the role that the bases in Scotland play in the defence of, for example, the Arctic and the Greenland Gap. One example of that is RAF Lossiemouth, which is a crucial RAF base for the Ministry of Defence and for the defence of our country. The aircraft based there, such as the Typhoons and the various intelligence aircraft that are there to gather information, are crucial to us. RAF Lossiemouth, along with other such facilities in Scotland, are crucial to the defence of our country.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Just as we heard in the last Question, the SNP Government are prepared to accept nuclear-generated electricity—as long as it is generated in England or Wales. They have also done a U-turn on the independent nuclear deterrent—as long as it is moved down to England. Is there any depth of cynicism to which the SNP Government will not go?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend is probably more able to comment on the SNP and the SNP Government than I am, but his question is serious and important. It gives us an opportunity to say that the base on Faslane—the nuclear deterrent provided there —is fundamental to the defence of our country. I note that even a former leader of the SNP is now talking about the need to maintain that nuclear deterrent, even if it were to be based in England.

Although the SNP has questioned the continuation of the independent nuclear deterrent, that did not stop it changing its policy in 2012 on being a member of NATO. I remind the SNP, as well as this House, all of Scotland and the whole of the UK, that NATO is of course a nuclear alliance. That provides protection for Scotland, and for the rest of the UK and our allies.

Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me just say to the noble Lord that everything that happens is now my responsibility. If I gave the impression that it was not my responsibility, that certainly was not my intention. I will not evade responsibility for anything.

On the noble Lord’s question, I am not going to go into the operations of our submarine fleet in great detail on the Floor of this House, for obvious reasons. However, the noble Lord makes a point, as he has done here previously, about the welfare of submariners—indeed, the welfare of all our Armed Forces. That is something we take very seriously. We are looking to do all we can to support them and ensure that they are supported in the way they should be. In a few months’ time, or a year’s time, perhaps the noble Lord can ask the same question, and we will see whether we have made the progress we should have done; that will be my responsibility.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with no disrespect to the important Question asked by my noble friend Lady Bryan, should we not be even more worried about Russian nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines in the Atlantic and elsewhere? Can the Minister give us a complete assurance that we have all the capability to keep an eye on them to make sure that our danger is minimised?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He refers to our continuous at-sea deterrent. Under every Government, that continuous at-sea deterrent has been maintained. It is a crucial part of our defence of our democracy, of our freedom and against Russian aggression. That policy has been the same whatever the colour of the Government. The previous Government dealt with that and wanted to modernise the deterrent. We will carry on with that. It is an important part of our deterrent posture. Our adversaries should know that, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year, our at-sea deterrent will continue for as long as is necessary.