UK Weapons Systems

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Whether it is nuclear or any other capability, but particularly with nuclear, you have to be calm, rational and reasonable about it. One of the successes of our strategic deterrent has been the fact that it exists. People know about it and understand the situation and the context that we have for it. As I say, the decision to go ahead with the F35A, with its dual capability, is in light of the changed strategic geopolitical context in which we operate. As such, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable decision for us to take with respect to our NATO colleagues in order to ensure that we can defend our country and the things that we stand for.

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

My Lords, I am not sure whether in this context the SNP can be described as a Government or a third party. To be generous, its policy in this area is best described as “flexible”. I wonder whether the Minister could help by explaining what it actually is.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I would like to think I had been able to answer most of the questions that have been asked so far, but I am not sure about this one from my noble friend. I will have a go. First, what the SNP stands for is completely and utterly incoherent. I remember the time a few years ago—I think it was 2012—when SNP members debated nuclear weapons but also, along- side that, whether they should be members of NATO. At that time they agreed to be members of NATO and, if I remember rightly, and others here will know, some SNP MSPs resigned because, they said, you cannot be a member of a nuclear alliance and be against nuclear weapons; that is incoherent. It seems to me that the SNP policy is that it accepts NATO’s nuclear umbrella and the security that that brings but does not want the nuclear weapons themselves to deliver it. In George Orwell’s famous terms, it seems to be “NATO nuclear weapons good, UK nuclear weapons bad”.

LGBT Veterans: Financial Recognition Scheme

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are looking at how we publicise the scheme, but of course we can always do more. Let us reflect on the noble Lord’s question and see whether there is more that can be done to publicise the scheme. I reassure people, including anybody who may be seeking to apply for this, that it is important to recognise that the application does not have to have been agreed by then. An application can be made right up to the last day, but it is important that it is made by then. I will certainly take away the point about publicity and see whether more can be done.

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

My Lords, this is not the only compensation scheme where there appears to be delays in payments. It is happening with the infected blood scheme and with the Post Office compensation. It appears that, sometimes, Ministers’ instructions are not being carried out by civil servants as quickly as they ought to be. Can the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to see whether there is something that can be done to make sure that all compensation payments are paid more quickly?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point, but this scheme is not a compensation scheme; it is a scheme to recognise the hurt that was caused to people in the period from 1967 to 2000. Notwithstanding that, it is an important point that needs to be made. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, we will certainly do all we can to ensure that these payments are made as quickly as possible. That is really important, and it is the least that the state can do in recognition of the horror that many people had to go through.

Defence Spending: Scotland

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

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 Coaker and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

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.