Official Report 912KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18614, in the name of Bill Kidd, on nuclear incidents. The motion will be debated without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Bill Kidd to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes reports of the disclosure of a number of safety incidents at His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde (Faslane) and the Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport, including the second Category A incident in two years; further notes that the UK Government and Ministry of Defence documentation has confirmed a number of “near-miss” incidents and safety breaches, including the radioactive contamination of Loch Long; notes what it sees as the concerns of constituents in Glasgow Anniesland and people across Scotland, and recognises the importance of ensuring the highest safety standards at these sites, particularly given their proximity to communities in Argyll and Bute and the wider west of Scotland.
16:42
It is with a heavy heart that I bring this debate to the chamber. For most of my adult life, I have campaigned on the dangers of nuclear weapons, and here we are again. From manning stalls on cold winter nights to the highs of having the honour of being part of the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament team that was nominated for the Nobel peace prize in 2017 in my capacity as co-president of the global group of PNND, I would give all of that up in a heartbeat to see a Scotland that was free of these terrible weapons and a nuclear weapon-free world. Sadly, however, that is not what we have today, which is why this debate is so important.
The recent disclosures about radioactivity contamination and repeated safety breaches raise serious and legitimate concerns that demand the attention of the Parliament and the wider public. The motion highlights the occurrence of a second category A nuclear safety event in two years, alongside a series of near-miss incidents and breaches, including the reported contamination of Loch Long. Those revelations, which have been confirmed by Ministry of Defence documentation and investigative reporting, are deeply troubling not only for communities in Argyll and Bute and the wider west of Scotland, but for the integrity of environmental and public health protections across Scotland.
Category A incidents, as defined by the Ministry of Defence, are the most serious classification of nuclear safety events. The fact that such an event occurred between January and April of this year and that it follows a similar incident that took place in the previous year demands urgent scrutiny. The environmental implications of those incidents cannot be overstated. Loch Long is a vital natural resource that supports biodiversity, local communities and economic activity. Reports of repeated leaks, infrastructure failures and increased tritium emissions from Coulport between 2018 and 2023 raise legitimate concerns about long-term environmental degradation, and the potential consequences for marine ecosystems and public health must be taken seriously.
The incidents were brought to light only by dogged journalism after the Scottish Environment Protection Agency refused to release critical documents relating to radioactive leaks until it was compelled to do so by the Scottish Information Commissioner, who stated that disclosure of the leaks threatened “reputations”, not national security. It is an outrage that reputational protection was put above public health, environmental safety and democratic accountability, and that only adds further weight to demands for urgent scrutiny.
I have therefore written today to the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, calling on it to undertake an inquiry into the incidents and to investigate, among other aspects, the adequacy of current oversight mechanisms, including the role of SEPA and United Kingdom regulators; the transparency of reporting and public communication regarding radioactive discharges; the existence and adequacy of emergency response plans, including whether a national plan exists and is publicly accessible; and the financial implications for local authorities and whether costs are being appropriately met by the UK Government.
The UK Government’s response to the issue has been woefully inadequate. The Ministry of Defence’s written response to my correspondence reiterates its commitment to international best practice and to oversight by the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. It also outlines plans to publish annual statistics on nuclear site event reports. Although those measures would be welcome in principle, they fall short of the transparency that is required in practice. The refusal to release incident-specific data, with the citing of operational security, prevents meaningful scrutiny and accountability.
Only last week, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy whether the UK Government had made any information available to the Scottish Government on addressing the radioactive waste that was released by the nuclear safety failure and on the work of cleaning the affected area and ensuring the physical health of local residents following the event. She was compelled to reply, “The short answer is no.” That is simply not acceptable, and it is why I am today asking the Scottish Government to formally request that a UK-wide inquiry into the incidents be established. Such an inquiry must be independent, transparent and comprehensive, with a clear mandate to investigate the state of nuclear safety at the facilities and to recommend necessary reforms. The inquiry should also consider the adequacy of current regulatory arrangements and the extent to which military nuclear sites are subject to the same environmental standards as civilian facilities.
Emergency preparedness is another area of concern. It is not sufficient for local authorities alone to bear responsibility for responding to nuclear incidents. We are talking about national facilities, and the implications extend beyond local boundaries. There must be a national emergency response plan. I ask the Scottish Government to confirm whether it knows of such a plan existing at Westminster, whether it is in the public domain and whether it can be made available for scrutiny.
A further area of concern, which is often unreported, is the costs incurred by local authorities in preparing for and responding to nuclear incidents. They should be met by the UK Government. It is unfair for local councils to bear the financial burdens of failures and risks that are associated with UK Government facilities. The polluter pays principle must apply, and the UK Government must take full responsibility for the consequences of its defence infrastructure.
Scotland has said before and will say again that nuclear weapons have no place here. However, until that day comes, we must demand transparency, accountability and, above all, safety. The people of Scotland are entitled to nothing less, and I urge all parties to put aside differences, come together and support calls for an independent UK inquiry to be held now.
16:50
I thank Bill Kidd for securing time for this debate. It goes to the heart of how the UK Government treats the people of Scotland. Nuclear weapons are designed to be destructive. Their use is unforgivable, and I would far rather see them removed from Scotland and the whole world entirely. However, as they are currently in Scotland, there are other issues that we have to pay attention to.
Bill Kidd is right that there is a lack of transparency and scrutiny on the wider impacts of radioactive waste. The motion talks about some really concerning incidents. However, they are not just one-off mistakes but parts of a bigger, much more worrying pattern. Locals should not have heard about those events through social media gossip and uncertain media reports. When we hear about category A incidents, near misses and radioactive contamination, we are talking not just about technical failures but about a complete breakdown of trust. The UK Government has one job here: to keep us safe. However, time and again, it has been shown that it does not care enough.
Reports of contamination in Loch Long are not just a news story; they represent a real threat to our environment, to the people of Argyll and Bute and to all of us who treasure our wild spaces. It is not just a Faslane problem. It is a story that has played out before. I ask members to think about Gruinard island off Ross-shire. Back in the 1940s, the UK used it as an anthrax test site and left it poisoned and closed off for decades—a literal scar on our landscape. The message to the Highlands was loud and clear: “This is a part of the country that is a convenient place for dangerous games, far from anyone who might complain or be worth listening to.”
The danger has not gone away. It is in the secret transport of nuclear waste on our roads and rails, often right through our towns and cities, without us knowing. We are left completely in the dark and are forced to accept those risks with no say in the matter. That is not transparency. It is treating us like we do not matter.
The people of Scotland, especially those of us who live in the Highlands and Islands, have a right to feel safe in our own homes, despite what is going on. We deserve to know what risks are being managed in our backyard. We deserve a Government that is up front and accountable and that listens to us instead of just pushing us around and expecting us to accept it. The UK Government needs to get that the Highlands and Islands, Argyll and Bute and Scotland as a whole are not a dumping ground for risky operations and dangerous material. We are communities with a right to a safe environment and a secure future. We deserve better. We deserve accountability, and we deserve to be treated with respect.
16:53
I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the debate. I completely respect his convictions, which he expressed with great eloquence. However, I say to him and to Emma Roddick that nuclear science and nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. It appears to me, judging by the first two speeches tonight, that the Scottish National Party has learned nothing about the threats and dangers of the world that we currently live in. Its members are burying their heads in the sand, and they ought to start listening to senior party figures who have encouraged them to think again about their ideological distrust of nuclear in general and of nuclear weapons in particular.
As we debate these issues today, I feel obliged to point out that, under this country’s constitutional arrangements, the nuclear deterrent and the operation of His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde at Faslane, along with the royal naval armaments depot at Coulport, are reserved matters that are overseen by the United Kingdom Parliament and the Ministry of Defence.
I say to fellow parliamentarians in the debate that the fact that the matters in question are in the public domain at all is evidence of the strength of our democratic system. The reports that we are discussing—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
The member might be about to explain this, but my understanding is that these matters are in the public domain thanks to some pretty dogged efforts by journalists, rather than any willingness on the part of the United Kingdom Government to tell us anything.
I think that Alasdair Allan will discover that it was the asking of a parliamentary question by one of his party’s members of Parliament that resulted in the official confirmation of the incidents to which Bill Kidd’s motion refers. Ministers were obliged to respond to that question in the Westminster Parliament with facts. That is transparency in action. It might not be the entire transparency that some members on the opposite side of the chamber would like to see, but such transparency is what distinguishes our democracy from those hostile regimes that would seek to undermine it.
His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, which comprises Faslane and Coulport, is the backbone of the United Kingdom’s continuous at-sea deterrent. It ensures that Vanguard-class submarines, armed with Trident missiles, are always at sea, providing a critical shield for our country. Faslane serves as the operational hub, while Coulport secures stores and loads nuclear warheads. Together, they form a cornerstone of our national defence.
Those operations extend well beyond submarines and naval personnel. They rely on a highly skilled workforce that includes Royal Navy personnel, the Royal Marines, Ministry of Defence civil servants, specialist contractors from firms such as Babcock International and Lockheed Martin, the Ministry of Defence Police and the Ministry of Defence Guard Service. There are approximately 3,500 to 4,000 civilian workers, alongside around 2,000 service personnel.
One of the key issues that Bill Kidd highlighted was safety. There was a category A leak. Does Stephen Kerr share the view of Bill Kidd and—I am sure—many other members that that is a serious issue and that safety is paramount? So far, Stephen Kerr has not touched on how such leaks affect safety.
I assure Stuart McMillan that I am coming right on to that, but I wanted to make a point about the strategic importance to our national defence and our economy of the role that is played by His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde.
The Ministry of Defence maintains one of the most rigorous safety cultures in the world. Every irregularity, however minor, is recorded and thoroughly investigated. None of the incidents that we are discussing today harmed personnel, endangered the public or caused measurable environmental harm. Our national security arrangements, whether through the Privy Council system, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which has had Scottish National Party members sit on it, or the duty of ministers to account to the House of Commons, are founded on a simple truth—that liberty and security are inseparable. Without security, there is no liberty.
I pay tribute to every man and woman, whether uniformed, civilian or a contractor, whose work at Faslane, Coulport and beyond ensures the effectiveness of our deterrent. National security should not be a matter of partisanship. It is a solemn responsibility that all of us who serve in public office share. Our nuclear deterrent is essential to the safety, sovereignty and freedom of the United Kingdom.
16:59
I thank Bill Kidd for lodging this important motion. Even now, we are told, the Scottish Government does not know exactly what has been happening at Coulport and Faslane with these latest radioactive leaks. Members of this Parliament and the people who elect us only know what we know because of the dogged investigative journalism of The Ferret, the courage of papers like The Guardian to publish, and the belligerence of the Scottish Information Commissioner.
This debate is important, but it is also timely. Donald Trump is, after all, making an official state visit to the UK. So we should send the 47th President of the United States a very clear message from the Scottish Parliament: that we oppose nuclear weapons, that we oppose nuclear and US military bases, and that we want to see the removal of both. Because these weapons and those bases do not strengthen our economy, our defences, our democracy. They do not strengthen our economy—they weaken it. They should never be considered as any part of any industrial strategy or any growth deal.
And nuclear weapons are not a deterrent at all; they only serve to spread nuclear proliferation. And, of course, it is not our deterrent in any case. It is not independent. We could only use it with the sanctioning of the Pentagon, the say-so of the White House, and the approval of Donald Trump—a man who has changed the name of the US Department of Defense to the US Department of War, and a man who wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza so that he can “own” the land.
What is also clear is that nuclear weapons, and the secrecy that surrounds them, do not make us safer. Quite the opposite—they make us much less safe and they corrode our democracy. Over 30 years ago, I co-authored a pamphlet with the late and much-missed John Ainslie, where I examined the construction of the explosives handling jetty at the royal naval armaments depot at Coulport—which, of course, is where those nuclear weapons, those warheads, are stored, maintained and then fitted. Originally estimated to cost £120 million, the jetty had already spiralled to £275 million, and faced considerable delay because of design and other failures, which meant that extensive and expensive steel reinforcements were necessary—a fact later confirmed by the National Audit Office.
So this jetty was problematic from the very start, and now it has been exposed as having “shortfalls in maintenance” and components beyond their design life, leading to the release of radioactive material into Loch Long, a sea loch, and the flooding of a nuclear weapons processing area. This should come as no surprise. Corrosion in pipes and radioactive leaks are a hallmark of the nuclear industry, not least in the so-called “civil” nuclear programme. So I will make a prediction that these will not be the last incidents or the last accidents at the base. In fact, the attempt to cover this up by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—which is, let us not forget, answerable to this Parliament and the Ministry of Defence—has been almost overtaken by events, with the revelation that, between January and April this year, a category A nuclear incident took place.
For me, there can only be one answer, and it is nuclear disarmament: unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is nuclear decommissioning. It is defence diversification. It is arms conversion. It is not an illusory defence dividend that we want; it is a peace dividend that we demand. It is the right to live in peace, to live outside the shadow of the nuclear menace, and to live outside the shadow of war: in short, it is a simple demand to stay alive.
17:03
I am grateful to Bill Kidd for lodging the motion, and I speak this evening to call loudly and clearly, as he and others have done, for the end of Trident for the safety of our communities, our children, our climate and our conscience.
We cannot ignore what has been reported: category A incidents at the Faslane naval base—the most serious classification, indicating an actual or high potential for the release of radioactive material. We read of old, decrepit pipework and of bursts of contaminated water flowing into Loch Long, a place that is beloved by the community, by swimmers, by fishers and by so many others. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirms serious maintenance failures, assets past their design life and delays in remedying known risks.
Those are not abstractions. Those incidents threaten our environment, our health and our trust in the institutions that are meant to protect us. To say “no harm to the public” or “no radiological impact” is cold comfort, given that latent risks multiply over time and near misses can become disasters, especially if nuclear weapons and radioactive materials are involved. The magnitude of the potential harm demands far more than assurances—it demands action.
As a Scottish Green, I believe deeply in peace, environmental justice and the power of the democratic will. The Scottish Green Party’s position is of long standing: these weapons do nothing to make us safer—they do not protect us from climate change, pandemics, inequality, cyberattacks or the rise of racism on our streets. They are a moral abomination. Scottish Greens, along with the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the wider peace movement, have repeatedly called for the removal of Trident from our waters, the abolition of nuclear weapons and, instead, investment in life-affirming public services.
Let us consider the alternatives. If the billions of pounds that are invested in Trident were instead spent on healthcare, social care, climate justice and lifting people out of poverty, Scotland—indeed, the UK—would be far stronger and far more secure in the ways that matter. The arms race, the nuclear deterrent posture and the infrastructure of creeping decay are all signs of moral and political failure. They undermine our democracy, impair our environment and gamble with our lives.
To constituents in Glasgow Anniesland, in Argyll and Bute and across the west of Scotland, I say that it is your waters, your air and your homes that are at risk. We owe you truth, transparency and accountability, not secrecy. We owe you change. I therefore call on the UK Government and the Ministry of Defence to do the only honest thing, which is to begin the process of disarmament, remove all nuclear weapons from Scottish soil, decommission Trident, stop the dangerous proximity of category A incidents, halt the contamination and end the threat.
I call on this Parliament to demand that both of our Governments—Scottish and UK—act. We must use every democratic lever, including parliamentary pressure, environmental regulation and civil society partnerships. I say support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and stand with Scottish CND and our communities, because we can choose a future built not on fear but on trust. We can reject weapons of mass destruction and we can invest in safety, our people and a peace that is real. That is the Scotland that I believe in.
In calling Alasdair Allan, I hope that he will take the opportunity to apologise for being late for the start of the debate.
17:07
It was my intention so to do. My apologies, Presiding Officer.
I declare an interest as a long-term member of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I thank Bill Kidd for his work in bringing an important motion to the chamber, and I recognise his long-standing personal commitment to the issue.
The unusable—I pray—nature of nuclear weapons means that they consistently fail to deter wars of aggression, even when that aggression involves nuclear powers, as recent years have shown only too clearly. For many people, the real terror that is presented by nuclear weapons is their capacity to be used as the result of a misunderstanding, an error or, as very nearly happened in the Soviet Union in 1983, an information technology fault.
My party has opposed the use or storage of nuclear weapons in Scotland since 1963, and I acknowledge that people in a number of other parties take the same view; indeed, that would be the majority position in this Parliament. It is therefore relevant for the Parliament to take an interest in the wider risks that may be presented by any radioactive incidents at nuclear bases.
Since coming to light, the numerous reports of radioactive contamination have proved concerning for many residents across western Scotland. The UK Ministry of Defence’s attempts to downplay those concerns leave many questions unanswered. The reality is that the incidents that prompted today’s debate have not come to our knowledge through the transparency and willingness of the Ministry of Defence. Instead, a six-year freedom of information battle has been waged by various journalists. Thanks to their hard work, we now know that incidents occurred in 2010 and 2021 and that there was a major leak of a radioactive isotope in August 2019. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency concluded that those leaks were due to shortfalls in maintenance. Perhaps even more worryingly, the plans to replace piping to maintain our expensive nuclear deterrent were, it seems, slow and inadequate.
I understand that some members will have differing views to mine on whether the nuclear deterrent works. However, I hope that, as Mr Kidd set out, we can all agree that the public in Scotland, who are host to a truly terrifying nuclear arsenal, have a right to be convincingly reassured on safety matters. I believe that it is not unreasonable, therefore, that the UK Government, which is ultimately responsible for the UK’s weapons of mass destruction—I use the phrase that describes them in the Scotland Act 1998—takes action to address the concerns that clearly exist about recent incidents and does so correctly and transparently. Given that Scottish taxpayers are expected to contribute towards the £3 billion annual maintenance bill for those weapons, I do not believe that it is an unreasonable ask that sites be maintained in a way that commands some degree of public confidence.
17:11
I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I wanted to thank Bill Kidd. I agree with Bill Kidd, and with Green and Labour colleagues, that we need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Sitting here, listening to the debate, I was reminded of an incident that occurred in November 2018, when the Stena Superfast VII ferry had a close-quarters incident with a Royal Navy nuclear submarine that was travelling between Belfast and Cairnryan in the north channel, close to the Irish Sea. The ferry’s officer of the watch was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision. The submarine’s command team had misjudged the ferry’s speed and range, leading to a near miss whereby the two vessels came within 50m to 100m of each other. A subsequent investigation by the marine accident investigation branch found that the submarine’s actions were unsafe, and the Royal Navy implemented new procedures to mitigate risks. The issue is not only the threat of nuclear weapons; it is also the threat to the public and the passengers who were going about their daily lives. The submarine was travelling at periscope depth. It was on a training mission and was photographed by people on the ferry. I wanted to bring that issue to the attention of Parliament.
It is absolutely an issue of safety. Growing up in Stranraer, I heard about the nuclear submarines patrolling the waters in the busy shipping lane between Larne and Belfast and Cairnryan. That is something that we need to think about. I want members to know that it is not just about the challenges of nuclear weapons; it is also about the other issues that are going on.
We need to build a future free from weapons of mass destruction, and that is where I will stop.
17:13
Like other members, I thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion on nuclear incidents for members to debate this evening. I also take a moment to acknowledge and appreciate the tireless campaigning on nuclear disarmament that he has done and will no doubt continue to do.
Bill Kidd raised a number of important issues and made a number of requests. I know that he has raised some of those matters with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, and I will continue to raise them with her after the debate. I think that there was a particular call for an inquiry from the UK Government, so I will raise that directly with her and respond to Bill Kidd.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I thank colleagues across the chamber for their contributions, which have been passionate, given the issues that we are discussing. One thing stuck out. Regardless of our views on nuclear weapons—I appreciate that they are deeply held by many members across the chamber, including Stephen Kerr—I hope that we can all agree that, as Alasdair Allan rightly summarised, we should all be concerned and informed about safety when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Scotland has a legacy of civil and defence nuclear sites that will, regrettably, be with us in one form or another for many years. Whether a site is one of the former nuclear power stations that are now in the decades-long process of decommissioning or an operational site such as Faslane, it is vitally important that that legacy is managed responsibly on behalf of the people of Scotland now and for generations to come.
Faslane is home to the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent. Therefore, I will reiterate the Scottish Government’s clear and long-standing position on nuclear weapons. The SNP Government is firmly opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons. They are strategically and economically wrong, their impacts are indiscriminate and devastating, and their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage. We believe that nuclear weapons should not be based in Scotland and should be removed in the safest and most expeditious manner possible, following a vote for independence.
In relation to the motion that we are debating, I completely agree that ensuring the highest standards of safety at nuclear sites in Scotland, including defence nuclear sites, is of the utmost importance. Although matters of defence and nuclear safety are currently reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government places great importance on the safe, secure and responsible management of radioactive substances while protecting people and the environment.
As such, repeated reports of serious incidents at Faslane are extremely worrying. The Scottish Government expects that the main focus of nuclear site operators, including the MOD, must be on safety and security at all times. As such, any incident involving radioactive substances is clearly a cause for concern. That is why the oversight and governance arrangements that are in place around Scotland’s nuclear sites are of critical importance, including the oversight by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Although defence sites are exempt from environmental legislation, the MOD has a long-standing agreement with SEPA, via a memorandum of understanding, to operate as though such sites were subject to normal environmental regulation. That is important not only to ensure that operations are conducted properly but to provide some reassurance to the public that activity is subject to oversight from an independent Scottish regulator.
Openness and transparency in the management of nuclear sites is critical to ensuring public confidence and, in particular, the confidence of the communities that live closest to nuclear sites. As such, it is deeply regrettable that the MOD has not released details of the incidents that have been reported at Faslane, including a reported category A nuclear site event—the MOD defines category A as the most serious—or at Coulport in relation to Loch Long being contaminated due to failing infrastructure.
Levels of radioactivity in food and in the environment around all Scotland’s nuclear sites, including Faslane, are regularly monitored by SEPA, and the results of that are published with an assessment of the impact on the public. That has been done annually since 1995 to provide further reassurance to communities and the public, but there is no room for complacency when it comes to protecting our people and our environment. The safe management of radioactive material—whatever purpose it is being used for—must stay at the heart of any work that is undertaken in Scotland, and the reporting of the incidents highlights that.
Therefore, I look to the MOD, SEPA and other regulatory bodies to maintain a robust and open relationship that ensures that such an approach continues until we can finally get rid of nuclear weapons from our shores, when Scotland gains her independence. Until then, we are clear that the UK Government and the MOD must take all steps necessary to reassure the public.
That concludes the members’ business debate on motion S6M-18614, in the name of Bill Kidd, on nuclear incidents. To allow front-bench teams to change positions, there will be a short pause before we move to the second and final members’ business debate of the evening.
17:18The second members’ business debate will be published tomorrow, 18 September 2025, as soon as the text is available.
Air ais
Decision Time