Defence

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Whatever has gone well in defence and whatever has gone wrong in defence in the United Kingdom over the last 50 years, it is the responsibility of the two main parties, one currently in opposition and one currently in government, and the ping-pong back and forth today has been a bit difficult to listen to. I heard the Minister’s plea earlier for us to inject some seriousness into the debate. He directed it over here although he could equally have directed it to those behind him, but I agree with him that this is a serious issue, not just because we have troops deployed but because, as others have pointed out, the first duty of Government is to defend the state and the people. I also agree with him that the motion in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition is a bit of a catch-all. It is a spleen-venting motion, and there is absolutely no way we can agree with it, much as we might agree with some of the priorities that the Opposition wish to be advanced purely on the defence side.

In response to the Opposition’s stated wish to fund their ambitions through the reinstatement of the two-child limit, the Minister referred to the importance of society. We do not invest in the importance and the priority of defence by marginalising people in society. It is essential that our communities have a sense of belonging in defence, and that defence has a sense of belonging in them. I speak from experience in Scotland, where defence has become an increasingly remote activity, as it has in large parts of England as well. I am not making a constitutional point. As defence has contracted into the south-east of England, it has become increasingly irrelevant on the rest of these islands. It is something that happens somewhere else, and there is a price to be paid for that, as people choose other careers and see other political and fiscal priorities as being more important than defence.

[Sam Carling]

The hon. Gentleman has just made a point about the concentration of defence investment in the south-east. Can he remind us where Trident is based?

[Dave Doogan]

I think the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being smart. I do not need to be reminded where Trident is based, and neither do the people of Scotland. We do not need to be reminded where the bullseye of the target on these islands is based. I do not need to be reminded how many Scots were asked whether they would like the UK’s supposedly independent nuclear deterrent to be based in our waters. I do not need to be reminded of that for one second—and in case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusions, which he apparently is, let me point out that the United Kingdom spends more money on defence in the south-west of England than it spends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He might like to reflect on that.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

I will make some progress.

A key problem for the current Government is that when they took over in 2024, they set great store by their strategic defence review. They said that they were going to fix defence from the ground up, and that it would all be in the strategic defence review, but when the strategic defence review was published it contained more questions than answers, principal among which was the defence investment plan. That was going to come in the summer. Then it was the autumn and then it was the winter and now it is the spring, and we do not even know whether we will get it in the following summer. It is critical for businesses to plan on this basis. I know that the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) takes a dim view of business and its role in defence, and takes a dim view of defence manufacturers. I respect his position, but I deeply disagree with him. We cannot honour our service personnel in uniform and then besmirch the manufacturers that equip them to do the job of defending us that we require them to do.

Similarly, the Government must come clean on the defence investment plan. It is simply not tenable. The Minister was clear with us in saying that Defence was very clear about what we required from the defence investment plan. That, alarmingly, tells us what the problem with the defence investment plan is, and it is the Treasury. Some of us have the privilege of speaking on defence and on the economy, and the fact that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is the arbiter of how our nation, or rather this state, will be defended in the future is deeply concerning given her competence in generic fiscal matters, let alone issues to do with defence.

[David Smith]

There are many things in the hon. Gentleman’s speech that I agree with, but as someone who grew up on the Clyde, does he welcomes the naval shipbuilding on the Clyde and the sales to Norway. Those who live in Scotland—I grew up 15 miles as the crow flies from Faslane—are also protected by the nuclear deterrent.

[Dave Doogan]

We will disagree on that last point, but I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the benefit of complex warship manufacturing in Scotland. It would be nice if it was occasionally framed as something other than a benevolent gesture from Westminster towards Scotland, as opposed to what it actually is: the United Kingdom benefiting from the skills and engineering expertise that have been present in Scotland for an awful long time. [Interruption.] I would not go that far.

That leads me to an intervention that was made on the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who declared that an independent Scotland would be completely defenceless and penniless. Classic Unionism! It totally ignores the fact that, at current rates, hard-working taxpayers in Scotland contribute £5 billion every single year to the defence of the United Kingdom. That has been airbrushed from reality.

[Brian Leishman]

I have been very clear—I have said it outside the Chamber, and I will say it inside—that I do not want Scotland or the United Kingdom to have any nuclear weapons. What is the hon. Gentleman’s personal opinion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The United Kingdom invests so much in the independent nuclear deterrent—more than £100 billion over a 10-year period—but the Government cannot even tell us the 10-year rolling price. It is not independent, and I do not believe that it makes us any safer. We would be far safer if we invested that money in playing a leading role in Europe in conventional defence. I further disagree with the unilateral decision of the UK Government to suddenly go and buy F-35As for gravity-drop nuclear weapons without even so much as a debate in this House. I think that clarifies for the hon. Member my position on the non-independent nuclear deterrent. I implore the Government to get their finger out and get the DIP published.

Middle East

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The permissions for the use of UK bases by the US are defensive. They do not include the striking of Iranian power plants, which is the clarification that my right hon. Friend asks of me. As I and the Prime Minister have said, those principles of defensive actions and decisions with a sound legal basis, and actions in co-ordination with allies to ensure a collective self-defence in the region, will continue to inform the decisions and choices that this Government make.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

One thing that unites the Prime Minister of Israel and the supreme leader of Iran is that neither could care less about what the UK Prime Minister says, and it is difficult to imagine that the US President is not in a similar camp. With fiscal headroom evaporating, business confidence vanishing and household budgets being shredded by this war, what can the Secretary of State offer, over and above the vacuous calls for de-escalation, to ensure that people on these islands are protected from the ferocious effects of this war on the supply of energy?

[John Healey]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman degrades the contribution that the UK is making to the collective defence of allies in the region, and that he fails to recognise that the basing request from the US to which we have agreed is an important and valuable contribution to the US operations and to our interests.

The decisions that the Prime Minister makes are in our national interests. He has said that we will do what we can, with allies, to deal with the risk to worldwide energy supplies and prices. He has supported the release of extra oil on to the markets, he has had the Government put in help for those who use heating oil, and he will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as I have told the House, to consider exactly the things that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I do indeed. It is noticeable that when the Scottish Government have had an opportunity to invest in defence skills, they have chosen not to. They chose not to when it came to the welding centre on the Clyde, but the Defence Secretary stepped in. Alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland, we have issued a challenge to the Scottish Government to match our commitment to creating two defence technical excellence colleges, one for the east coast and one for the west coast. We say: put the effort into investing in a whole new generation of young Scots, and get the benefit of a rising defence budget in Scotland.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

There was a pork-barrel stench when the first defence growth deal was awarded to the Minister’s constituency. Over six months later, he has finally got around to making an award to Scotland, but for Scotland, the £50 million has turned into £20 million—and he wants the Scottish Government to foot the bill. Can he be clear with the House today about why, while there are no strings attached to the £50 million for the Welsh defence growth deal, there are strings attached to the Scottish defence growth deal, and does he expect the Scottish Government to top up the £20 million that he has allocated, so that it becomes the £50 million that every other area has got?

[Luke Pollard]

This is just the politics of grievance from the SNP. This Labour Government have allocated £50 million to support growth in Scotland, including £5 million for the Arrol Gibb campus in Rosyth and—[Interruption.]

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s direction of travel and passion. We followed due process, in accordance with the Procurement Act, in awarding those contracts. As I have clearly set out, we will comply with the agreement made last week on publication of data and documents.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It shows yet more extraordinarily poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister that he met personally with Palantir—a highly questionable organisation that is complicit in the ruination of Palestine and the devastation wreaked in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Palantir are into the United Kingdom taxpayer for half a billion pounds, half of which was not competed. We should be concerned about Palantir, full stop. We should be concerned, in addition, about a direct award. We should be further concerned by the company being a client of Peter Mandelson and then having a meeting with the Prime Minister—for which there are apparently no minutes. When will Downing Street come up with a confirmed position on whether minutes were or were not taken in that meeting with Mandelson?

[Luke Pollard]

As I have been clear to the House in a number of answers, we will continue to have a security and defence relationship with the United States, and it is in our national interests to do so. We are a party that takes defence and security very seriously, which is something that I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party would do more of, although I have much respect for him. I will continue to ensure that we get the best services for our armed forces as we move to warfighting readiness. I have answered the question about minutes, and it will be for Downing Street to publish that in due course.

Armed Forces Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The SNP is broadly supportive of the contents of the Bill. It is an important Armed Forces Bill; it is hard to remember another Armed Forces Bill that stepped into such a yawning breach between the armed forces capabilities that we have and the armed forces capabilities that we need. Notwithstanding the fact that clauses 5, 9, 48 and 49 and schedule 2 and elements of schedule 3 will not have effect in Scotland, much of that which is in the Bill is long-overdue legislation that begins to address the systemic problems of the recruitment, training and upkeep of our armed forces, what we expect our armed forces to do and the conditions in which we expect them to live.

I will restrict my remarks to the measures that address the important elements of housing, sexual harm and the numbers within our armed forces. I will not labour the point, except to say that the provisions for sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders in clause 5 are still sadly very much required. We must have confidence that our young people who decide to join the armed forces can do so knowing that while it may or may not prove to be the career or job for them, they can sign up, train, qualify and serve in the knowledge that they will not be predated upon by either their peers or their superiors. Clause 5 will not directly apply in Scotland, but will of course benefit from legislative consent motions in order that a similar effect will be established there for the safety and security of our uniformed personnel.

The Bill needs to address the recruitment crisis in our armed forces, so it remains a concern that the Government are seeking in the Bill to ensure less parliamentary scrutiny over the size of the armed forces instead of facilitating more. The most recent targets were set in 2021. Currently, the UK armed forces overall are 6% below target at almost 9,000 personnel short—a loss of 11,128 personnel across the UK since 2014. In April 2014, there were 11,100 regular armed forces in Scotland; in April 2021, that had gone down to 10,440. In 2014, the UK Government committed to increasing the number of Scotland-based personnel to 12,500—I would be interested if the Minister could advise what the figure is now.

The UK has a relatively small per-capita standing army by European standards, so it was disappointing that the SDR merely recommended no further reductions in the size of the regular forces, instead of showing the patently required ambition to grow in order to ensure that our armed forces are able to maintain the defence and resilience of the homeland and our commitments to NATO.

I support the taking back into public ownership of service accommodation and the ending of the appalling commercial contracts, which have been well documented in countless debates in this place. I also welcome the Government’s establishment of the Defence Housing Service. However, in March 2025, the MOD could not confirm via written parliamentary questions how much would be spent on maintaining and improving SLA, with the amount ranging from £445 million to £619 million. I wonder whether the Minister can narrow that figure down for the House this evening.

Moreover, those figures have not been broken down to differentiate between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such, there is no confirmation of how much will be spent on SLA for personnel serving in Scotland. The House of Commons Library confirmed in 2024 that the MOD managed 47,700 properties, 91.5% of which were in England and Wales, with 6.6% in Scotland. How will these much needed and urgent improvements be marshalled across each establishment and each nation?

With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish the Minister every success with the Bill.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for encouraging short questions and short answers.

My hon. Friend is right on both accounts: part of the British and European frontline is in the Donbas and part of the frontline for this nation, and for NATO, is the North Atlantic. I am proud that Scotland makes such a considerable contribution to the security of this country, and I am proud that part of the basing that was important for the US operation was indeed in Scotland.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I wholeheartedly endorse the resolve across this House to continue to help Ukraine to prevail against this aggression. By extension, I therefore commend the armed forces personnel who enabled and assisted the US in this very slick interdiction of a rogue vessel—a key element of the funding of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

There are other challenges in the High North as we speak. Our allies in the United States are apparently very concerned about the vulnerability of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our partners in the Joint Expeditionary Force nations about discussing with the Greenlandic peoples and the Government of Denmark how the JEF may deploy to Greenland, to allay those US fears?

[John Healey]

I am sure that the US and the US military will welcome the strong support from the Scottish nationalists for their operation, and the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman offers; I shall ensure that the US Secretary of War is aware of that.

On the question of Greenland, I have been in contact with the Danish Defence Minister. The Prime Minister was very clear in the joint declaration that he signed yesterday in Paris that Greenland is part of Denmark. Its sovereignty is not at stake, and it is defended by being part of NATO. Its security is guaranteed by all 32 member states, and any future for Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the citizens of Denmark.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his constant championing of the workforce at BAE Systems and in the supply chain. They are absolutely vital. I have seen the new apprentices’ energy and enthusiasm. We are working with colleagues across Government to look at what further export orders are available and can be secured so that we can expand the international sales of the Typhoon fighter aircraft, securing not only our security and jobs in the UK, but our NATO allies’ security.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Defence innovation is harmed by a default America-first posture. Ironically, that is especially apparent in the so-called independent nuclear deterrent, which relies on US tech for fusing, firing, arming, neutron initiators, the gas transfer system and the mark 4 aeroshell. We can add to that the purchase of further F-35s for US-manufactured gravity-delivered nuclear weapons. President Trump will put America first, but it is difficult to understand why this Labour Government seem keen to do the same, while spurning the innovation opportunity of the £130 billion SAFE programme in the EU.

[Luke Pollard]

We have rising defence spending in Scotland and more jobs in Scotland, and we just hear moans from the SNP about no new jobs when we are investing more in British defence firms and more in Scottish defence firms. There is a new Scotland defence growth deal and more opportunities on the Clyde, in Rosyth and elsewhere around Scotland. That should be welcomed, but I am afraid the Christmas spirit has yet to arrive on the SNP Benches.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for talking about Army Medical and 2 Med Group in particular. The strategic defence review set out how we need to invest in our enablers, and that includes Defence Medical Services, ensuring that as we move towards warfighting readiness, we maintain the ability to treat any of our personnel who may be injured or need medical attention. That work is ongoing, and he should expect to see investment in the defence investment plan.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

This is not the Minister’s fault, but it is his responsibility. This issue has gone from Labour to a coalition Government to a Tory Government. It is now back with Labour, and we have a system that is nine years late, has cost £6 billion and has just injured a further 30 of our service personnel. GD is a US prime. Does the Minister think for one second that the US would allow themselves to get messed around by a UK prime in the same way? Does he have any indication that he can share with the House about defence contingency planning if he has to press the button to cancel this project, in terms of the CV90 or Rheinmetall Lynx?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member is right that we need to end this saga. It has gone on for too long, and I am not happy with any of our equipment being used by our service personnel if it is not safe. Since I became a Minister, I have taken a number of decisions to pause the use of certain equipment because I had safety concerns about it. I did so again with Ajax, because the safety of our people is a priority for me. That is something I feel strongly, as a representative of a military city and coming from a military family. It is too early, until I see the reports, to look at what may happen next, but I reassure him that when we get to that stage, we will report to the House.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The three fatalities from Stirling that the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) has just set out so eloquently were three of the 135,000 men and women who died from Scotland during world war one. There were almost 60,000 Scots casualties in world war two, and more still in campaigns thereafter in Malaya, Korea, the Falklands, the Gulf and Afghanistan. Some 25% of all Scots who answered the call during the great war never returned to Scotland. We are united in remembrance of their selflessness and heroism and the personal sacrifice endured during that period.

As well as the brave men on the frontline, we must pay tribute to the Scots at home—many of whom were women—who toiled on the land and in the mines, shipyards and munitions factories. Without their efforts and sacrifice, the war could never have been prosecuted in the way that it was. One thousand and twelve men and women from Perthshire gave their lives during world war one, with 248 coming from Blairgowrie alone and many hundreds more coming from the Angus glens and the burghs of Angus. As well as the human sacrifice and cost, we must remember the cultural and economic toll of such high attrition of breeding-age men—men who would father families, or not as the case may be, and men who would have worked productively, or not as the case may be.

On the eastern tip of my constituency lies Montrose, the site of the UK’s first operational air station, home to No. 2 Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps, established in 1913. During world war two, Montrose was a strategic target for the Luftwaffe. Montrose was bombed at least 15 times in October 1940, suffering huge destruction to the port, air base and the Chivers jam factory, which caused a huge consternation. In that attack, three German Junkers dropped at least 24 bombs on the station, killing five, injuring 18 and destroying two hangars and the officers’ mess. Angus was bombed a minimum of 44 times before the war ended.

Against this, I was pleased to stand in the heaving rain on Sunday in Blairgowrie with veterans of the Black Watch, the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, cadets and a good 150 local people braving the elements to pay tribute and give thanks to our veterans. We should note that at the end of the second world war the state invested greatly in veterans. That concordance with our service personnel is one that we should seek to continue to honour. I know that in Scotland the Scottish Government have worked with business to proactively assist in the recruitment of veterans, not least because veterans are excellent employees. ScottishPower is demonstrating this by actively recruiting 300 veterans by the end of this year and a further 2,000 by the end of next year to support investment in our energy infrastructure.

Our armed forces are not essential to the fabric of our society. They are the fabric of our society. It can be quite fashionable to pretend that war is something that belongs in the history books, but 80 years is the blink of an eye in human history. Humans have demonstrated that they can be brutal, visceral and lethal, and I want the defence on my side to outpace logistically, industrially, technologically and lethally those who would seek to do us harm. We have a debt to our armed forces. They will step up and answer the call when needed, and that is their duty, and we owe them a serious debt of gratitude for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that that we are doing so with close allies. We are also doing so with Ukraine. The right hon. Gentleman has been one of the voices in this House that has pushed us to do more with Ukrainian industry, and I know he will welcome our groundbreaking agreement with Ukraine, through which it will share for the first time with another country its intellectual property for the critical interceptor drone called Octopus. We will develop that further, manufacture those drones at scale within weeks and months, and return thousands to Ukraine to help its fight against Putin.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Ministry of Defence spent £1.2 billion with SMEs in 2024-25. Sadly, though, only 2.5% of that spending went to SMEs in Scotland, which report extreme difficulty in accessing those MOD contracts. This is an inevitable consequence of the MOD spending more in one region of England than it spends in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland put together. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an undesirable outcome, and what steps will he take to increase SME expenditure by the MOD in Scotland to at least Scotland’s per capita share, which is what it contributes to the cost of defence?

[John Healey]

The first useful step, of course, would be for the Scottish nationalist Government to lift their bar on any support for defence and associated firms. One of the biggest problems for SMEs in the defence field in Scotland is that they cannot get any support from their own Government, despite the big contribution that those SMEs make to jobs, opportunities and security, not just for Scotland and the UK.