Defence in the High North

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this statement on the Defence Committee’s report, “Defence in the High North”.

The High North is a priority theatre for the UK, as well as a particularly challenging and hostile environment in which to operate. Russia is seeking to dominate and exploit the High North, potentially turning the region into a major vulnerability for the UK. The UK is a near neighbour of the High North. Indeed, parts of northern Scotland are closer to the Arctic circle than to the channel, while the strategically important GIUK gap spans Greenland, Iceland and the UK.

The region is changing rapidly. As temperatures rise and ice melts, new access routes are opening up, making the High North more congested and contested. Most critically, the High North is home to much of Russia’s strategic nuclear, naval and undersea sabotage capability and provides a base from which Russia can project military power into adjacent regions. That extends to UK territorial waters, where there has been a significant increase in hybrid threats to subsea critical infrastructure. In recent weeks, the Royal Navy has intercepted a Russian intelligence ship off the coast of Scotland.

Our report concluded that the UK has glaring capability gaps in the High North that leave us vulnerable. Without intervention, those gaps are set to widen, further weakening the UK along its northern flank. Evidence of low availability among frigates, destroyers and attack submarines raises serious questions about whether the UK can meet its High North commitments before new capabilities enter service.

The Ministry of Defence also has a serious gap in its anti-submarine warfare capability measured against its own military requirements. Currently, there are 11 frigates and destroyers in service. That is just over half of the requirement for 19 vessels. Of the required 13 frigates, eight should be fitted with towed array sonar for anti-submarine warfare. At present, this capability is limited to the remaining five Type 23s. That weakens the UK’s ability to respond to Russian submarines and underwater sabotage.

It is a worrying picture. The Royal Marines’ Arctic experience is a significant national strength, but it cannot compensate for shortfalls in the naval platforms needed to deploy, protect and sustain operations in the region. The Government are already rightly investing in the hybrid Navy and Atlantic Bastion, including the £90 million investment announced this week in new drones and sensors to counter undersea threats. We know that the Government are aware of the growing threat in the High North. Our concern is not that nothing is being done, but that the necessary capabilities will not be available fast enough. Given the critical role of anti-submarine operations in the High North, the Committee called on the Government to ensure that no further towed array-equipped Type 23 frigates leave service until they are replaced one for one by the new Type 26 vessels.

Addressing our own capability gaps is fundamental, but the UK must also be able to deploy flexibly to the High North, whether acting alone, with partners such as Norway, or through the joint expeditionary force or NATO. That brings me to the joint expeditionary force—the JEF—a UK-led force of 10 like-minded northern European nations. Although the JEF was originally conceived as capable of operating across the full spectrum of conflict, its role has become increasingly focused on countering sub-threshold and hybrid threats, on the assumption that NATO would deter any escalation to warfighting. But with less certainty about the US commitment to collective NATO defence, the JEF’s comparatively limited capabilities could be seen as less of a deterrent. That could leave it exposed if an incident threatens to escalate.

We heard from some during our inquiry that the JEF was a “jack of all trades” and therefore master of no military tasks. The Government should therefore reassess the JEF’s contribution to European security. We welcome this week’s northern navies initiative as a step towards strengthening the JEF and aligning it more closely with NATO. The Government should also consider whether the JEF should focus more closely on the High North, particularly if Canada joins.

It is clear that Russia is not a future threat but a present danger. Failure to deter Russia in the High North would put subsea data cables and energy pipelines at risk in peacetime. In the event of hostilities, it would threaten the UK and its critical national infrastructure, including the nuclear deterrent. Atlantic resupply routes from the US would also be at risk. In conclusion, our report sets out the threat that Russia poses in the High North, and what the Ministry of Defence needs to do in response. It is now time for the Government to act with urgency to address those capability gaps and strengthen the UK’s defence of that critical region.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman on the production of such an important report. One section that most struck me was that beginning at paragraph 84 on submarine under-ice capability. I was surprised to learn that Astute-class submarines do not have the capability that their predecessors, the Trafalgar-class submarines, used to have. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about when that capability might be acquired, and can he throw any light on the fact that, as has become painfully clear over recent weeks and months, the existing Astute-class submarines, some of them very new, are not at sea? Is that a manning problem, is it a technical problem, or is it both?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, a former Chair of the Defence and Intelligence and Security Committees, for his perceptive and incisive remarks. Under-ice capability is key for the UK to effectively deter and defend in the High North. Unfortunately, we have allowed our under-ice capabilities to lapse precisely at the time when they are most needed. That is why a previous Defence Committee report advocated for the hardening of hulls. This report recommends that we rapidly re-establish those under-ice capabilities, because if we do not, Russia will not be deterred from its activities. In fact, it will be further emboldened, because we will not be able to protect those transatlantic supply routes.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I thank the Committee Chair for presenting this report on the High North to the Chamber. Does he agree that it underscores how acutely important our submarine programme is, and the value of what we do in Barrow-in-Furness? Does he also agree that we need a massive increase in funding to help deliver those changes rapidly?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend, a fellow member of the Defence Committee, for her strong and positive contributions to this report, and her other work. Indeed, it was a pleasure to visit Barrow-in-Furness and to see some of those submarine capabilities. She is right: as a nation, we need to invest at pace because of the lack of availability of those submarines, and that is portrayed strongly in our report.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his remarks, and I very much enjoyed going with him on our various visits to make this report. Did he feel, as I did, slightly awkward when we were visiting the Nordic states? We know what we are spending on defence. We know that Norway is spending 3.35% of GDP, Denmark 3.5%, Sweden 2.8% and reaching 3.5% by 2028, and Finland 2.85% and reaching 3.3% by 2032, yet we have not yet committed to the Committee’s preferred 3% by the end of this Parliament. That created a certain unease. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when we visited Norway, we were told by its Chief of Defence that every time the Prime Minister of Norway makes a speech, he mentions the threat from Russia? Does he agree that we must advance the so-called national conversation if we are to take the British public with us, and explain the threat to them, as well as the capability and investment that we need to counter it?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Defence Committee. I very much enjoyed going with him on various visits to increase our knowledge and understanding of what is happening out there, and to get that perspective from our allies. He rightly highlights the significant increases in defence spending among our European allies, which is why some of us have been vocal in our advocacy for the position that the UK must not be left behind, and that we need to reach defence spending of 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. Indeed, as Committee members will be more than aware, we made a joint statement to ensure that the Government focus their attention on that issue. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I thank the Chair of the Committee for his magnificent statement. As the Arctic becomes increasingly contested, with growing Russian and Chinese activity, does he believe that the UK armed forces are adequately equipped, trained and prepared to operate effectively in extreme Arctic conditions, or are there significant gaps in capability and readiness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Defence Committee, on his recent elevation to Lib Dem defence spokesperson for veterans and people. No doubt he will give our former Committee member, now the Minister for Veterans and People, good scrutiny in the future.

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that there are significant capability gaps, and those need to be addressed. As I said earlier, while we can be proud of the expertise and capabilities of the Royal Marines, those are no substitute for naval vessels or for having the platforms through which they can project that expertise.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Unlike the Secretary of State for Defence, Conservative Members listen to the Chair of the Defence Committee, and indeed to his colleagues who have produced an excellent report, “Defence in the High North”. As I must be brief, I wish to ask about the report’s warnings about the lack of operationally available assets in the Royal Navy, both surface escorts and attack submarines. As the report states on page 29:

“According to several media sources, all five Astute Class nuclear attack submarines have recently all been tied up in dockyards at the same time, with none deployed.”

That point has been mentioned by several Members this afternoon. The Astute class was once described to me by a naval officer as being like a Formula 1 racing car—great on the track, but a bitch when it gets into the pits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned serious capability gaps, so when does he think Ministers will finally come clean about why all five of our nuclear attack submarines have been tied up for months?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the shadow Minister for his kind words about the work of the Committee. Capability gaps, particularly with regard to submarines, were mentioned by the Committee at length, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) was also forthright in making that point. The capability gaps in the delivery of future subs must be addressed urgently. For example, we received evidence suggesting that the production of certain assets was advancing at a “leisurely” pace. That needs to be addressed. Ultimately, as the Committee’s report on AUKUS highlighted, the next-generation SSN-AUKUS is incredibly important and we must ensure that we are investing at pace so that our Australian friends also have that capability at pace. For much of the time at present, we are left in a situation where many of our assets, including submarines, are in either maintenance or deep maintenance.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I commend the Chair of the Defence Committee and his colleagues for a tremendous report. As he rightly mentioned, Scotland is effectively on the frontline of the new potential battleground of the High North. Will the Chair be circling back to the report to see whether there has been progress? Scotland is critical to closing the frigate gap; BAE Systems on the Clyde and Babcock in Rosyth on the east coast are building warships even as we speak. I am concerned by recent comments made by Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, who claimed that Britain is in some way abandoning Scotland to the Russian threat, when in fact one of the real threats to national security in this country is the Scottish National party’s separatist agenda: it is not sure whether it wants to be in NATO or out of NATO, and it wants the nuclear submarines out of Faslane. It is a strange picture, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might go back to that?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his incisive comments. He will be pleased to note that Scotland had several mentions in our report, as well as in the wall-to-wall coverage that the hard-hitting report attracted. There was much mention of the need to strengthen our capabilities in Scotland. Obviously, the Scottish Government need to make sure that they are aligned with some of the investments that are being made by the UK Government. That is really important, because during our visits to Scotland we saw that many of those working in the industry, as well as those serving, are very much looking to the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work in partnership. The hon. Gentleman mentioned NATO. Let nobody be in any doubt that NATO is a cornerstone of British defence. I therefore fully concur with his views on that question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee and the Committee for all they have done. The Chair outlined the training that the Royal Marines receive to carry out their duties in the High North. If there is a war—we hope there will not be—the Royal Marines will not fight that war on their own, because the Royal Irish Regiment, along with all the other regiments in the British Army, will fight alongside them. What has been done to ensure that the Royal Irish Regiment and other regiments have the same training as the Royal Marines in the High North?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

You have 40 seconds or less to answer, Mr Dhesi

[Mr Dhesi]

Thank you for that steer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is ever present in the Chamber, for his question. The Committee did not look into the capabilities offered by the Royal Irish Regiment, but it is true that it needs to be strengthening their capabilities and training because Britain can only succeed if all regiments are fighting together, just as we can only succeed more widely if we are fighting alongside our NATO allies. We need to deter the threat before there is any conflict or crisis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his statement and his excellent timekeeping.