Submarine Service 125th Anniversary

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my role.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate and giving us this opportunity to recognise 125 years of the Royal Navy submarine service. This anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on the service’s extraordinary history, to recognise generations of submariners and the families who supported them, and to remember those who gave their lives serving our country. The work of submariners often depends on remaining unseen, but today we can ensure that their contribution is properly recognised.

On 2 October 1901, the launch of Holland 1 marked the beginning of the Royal Navy’s submarine story, as we have already heard. During both world wars, submariners distinguished themselves in conditions that demanded exceptional courage, skill and endurance, engaging in everything from reconnaissance to disrupting enemy supply lines.

The introduction of nuclear propulsion brought another profound change. In 1963, HMS Dreadnought entered service as Britain’s first nuclear-powered submarine. Six years later, the Resolution class of submarines began our continuous at-sea deterrent. Successive generations of submariners have maintained that deterrent without interruption. That unbroken mission depends on a crew at sea, on those preparing to take their place and on everyone ashore whose work makes each patrol possible.

Alongside providing deterrence, our submariners gather intelligence, hunt hostile submarines, protect maritime forces and offer the ability to strike targets at sea and on land. Their ability to operate undetected gives the UK options that few other capabilities can provide, and much of their work cannot be discussed publicly. Operational security rightly limits what we can say about individual deployments and the readiness or availability of particular submarines.

[Mr Francois]

Before the Minister chides me for discussing submarine movements in Parliament, I am not doing so; I am discussing the absence of submarine movements. So, either now or before he ends his speech, will he tell the House why not a single one of our nuclear attack class submarines—the Astute class—was at sea for months?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for setting himself up, because I will take great pleasure in explaining to him why we are in that position.

However, I will first explain that a central part of democracy is the ability to report responsibly on submarine operations. Crews cannot reply to speculation, and their families cannot be told where their loved ones are. Unfounded guesses about the activities of a boat, particularly a submarine on a deterrent patrol, leave a husband, a mother or a child at home worrying about when they will next see the brave sailors who crew our submarines. For that reason, I urge responsibility in discussions about these matters.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway asked me to shed light on why we are here. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has so passionately set himself up to hear why. It is quite clear that the cuts made in the 2010 strategic defence and security review did the damage that we are trying to recover from now. Let us be clear: it was the Opposition who deferred the replacement of Vanguard by four years, and it was the Opposition who slowed the Astute build.

[Mr Francois]

On that point—

[Mr Bailey]

It was the 8% cut in real terms that they delivered—

[Mr Francois]

That is not correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Sir Roger. It was an 8% cut in real terms that did lasting damage, taking us from 2.6% of GDP down to 2.1%. This Government have taken us from 2.3% when we entered office to 2.7%, and we will go on towards 3% in 2030. We have had to put £26 billion into our bases to recover from the damage that the Opposition did—£15.1 billion in Clyde, including the purchase of three new floating docks and shoreside maintenance facilities to fix the underinvestment, and, as we have heard, an investment of £7.1 billion at Devonport.

I urge some humility at a moment when we are trying to talk about the submarine service. Scrutiny strengthens our armed forces, but careless disclosure and discussion—and using our service people as a political football—do not support our armed forces; they damage the people and families who are out there serving and putting their lives at risk for us.

[Chris Vince]

I want to make this point because I heard other hon. Members mention it, and I know my wife would not forgive me if I did not. We have spoken very passionately about submariners and the sacrifice that they make, but the Minister is absolutely right to identify the huge sacrifice that their families make, particularly in relation to the nuclear deterrent. Those families cannot know where their loved ones are—that is a huge sacrifice. Does he agree?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, who spoke so passionately about the contribution of Raytheon, about and the wonderful Sea Cadets in his constituency and about HMS Triumph. He has just made the point that I was trying to make earlier: we need to be responsible in our reporting and discussions. We need discussions that challenge but are respectful of those who cannot respond when they are used as a political football.

I wear this tie of the submarine service today because, from 2017 to 2020, I worked in the Ministry of Defence alongside some incredible submariners. Every Monday, I had to go up to see some of the colleagues I now work opposite and explain to them why our systems and services were in such a mess. Every Monday, we had to explain the damage that had been done to the submarine service and to the Royal Air Force.

I welcome the comments from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who gave an excellent account of the U-boats. I have a reading list from him about the U-boat killers and the importance of the aircraft that support our submarines. Again, I point to the aircraft that were deleted in the 2010 SDSR. We should all remember the loss of the XV230, the Nimrod from 120 Squadron under the captainship of Flight Lieutenant Squires, which was lost 20 years ago this year, and the 14-person crew—12 RAF, one Royal Marine and one Parachute Regiment—who lost their lives. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for recognising the contribution of those airmen as part of the undersea mission. I also felt great pride during his discussion of “Subsunk”. I was held at readiness to deliver that mission.

I want to acknowledge those who support the service ashore: our engineers, dockyard workers, designers, civil servants and industrial partners who build and sustain the submarines on which it depends.

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the Minister for setting out how the Government are putting in place the infrastructure necessary for the future of the submarine service. On a very specific point, will he raise with his officials the need to upgrade the contingent docking facility at Rosyth? That would allow it to host HMS Dreadnought as part of ensuring the continuous at-sea deterrent for decades to come.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion not only for our servicepeople and the submarine service, but for his constituency. In response to his question about Rosyth, HMS Swiftsure is a demonstrator of the necessary recycling capabilities. Again, I have to point to the fact that although an abundance of submarines and boats in my hon. Friend’s constituency require fixing, the party of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford chose not to address that. I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of that point; I was pleased to see his appointment to the Select Committee on Defence.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I referred to the critical role that Northern Ireland played during the second world war. I also paid tribute to what the submariners and the Royal Marines did in the conflict in Northern Ireland by stopping illegal weapons coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree—I know he will—that we are not often told about that critical role for our security?

[Mr Bailey]

I agree with the hon. Member about the centrality of Northern Ireland, which I think is symbolically represented in the capturing of the German U-boat fleet during the second world war. That is why, very early on in my role, I made two visits to Northern Ireland to recognise its contribution to our services and defence industry.

This anniversary is also a moment for us to remember and honour—we are on the eve of Armistice Day, so this is particularly fitting—those submariners who did not return and the families whose lives were changed forever by their loss. We remember the nearly 6,000 submariners and 150-plus submarines that never returned. Behind those figures are lives, friendships and families. They must never become simply numbers on a page or used as political footballs. The submarine community speaks of them as being on eternal patrol—an expression of remembrance and of a bond that does not end with death.

Doing justice to that history also means looking ahead. The Dreadnought programme will provide the next generation of CASD. Advanced attack submarines from AUKUS will carry forward the service’s tradition of technological innovation. But our gratitude must be more than that.

I will stray from my script. As I was sitting next to two incredible submarine captains in the Ministry of Defence, they encouraged me to wear the tie of their service today. I will never walk past the dolphins— I understand their importance. I hope that everything I do is reflective of their service.