Downing Street has defended the government’s decision to change the name of a new attack submarine from HMS Agincourt to HMS Achilles after critics accused ministers of trying not to upset the French.
A No 10 spokesperson called the decision to change the planned name of the vessel “appropriate and fitting”, despite criticism that ministers were being “craven”. Officials say the name Achilles had been chosen in part to pay tribute to an previous ship of the same name.
“HMS Achilles received battle honours during the second world war. So this name is particularly appropriate this year as we mark the VE and VJ Day 80th anniversaries,” the spokesperson said.
“An earlier HMS Achilles was laid down 120 years ago this year, in 1905, and the name was proposed by the Royal Navy ships names and badging committee and approved by his majesty the king. Achilles is a perfectly valid name for a ship.”
The navy announced on Sunday night that the Astute-class submarine, which is under construction, would be named Achilles rather than the planned name of Agincourt, the site of Henry V’s 1415 victory over the numerically superior French forces of Charles VI.
The decision prompted criticism from a former navy officer and two former defence secretaries who accused the government of trying to avoid a backlash from the French.
Chris Parry told Times Radio: “This is just craven and contemptible surrender to, I’m afraid, the ideology being pushed by our government. It seeks to erase our history and anything we need to be proud of. I don’t see the French renaming the Gare d’Austerlitz to avoid upsetting the Germans.
“This is just craven political correctness and ideology gone mad.”
Grant Shapps, a Conservative former defence secretary, said: “Under Labour, ‘woke’ nonsense is being put ahead of tradition and our armed forces’ proud heritage.”
His successor, Ben Wallace, said: “We’re very close to the French. The French are one of our strongest allies. They don’t get put off by names like that … that shows a very pathetic grasp of foreign policy and relationships.
If not upsetting the French] were the real reason it had been renamed, he said, “then I would be concerned that it shows we’re focusing on superficial nonsense rather than rebuilding our defence”.
The prime minister’s spokesperson said the decision to change the vessel’s name was taken on the recommendation of the navy’s badging committee, but could not say whether anyone in No 10 had played a role in it.
Asked whether Keir Starmer was proud of the English army’s victory at Agincourt, his spokesperson said: “Absolutely, and also proud of our role in the second world war.”
Ministers are also coming under pressure to clarify when the government will hit its target of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence after reports it might be pushed back until after the next election.
The defence minister, Luke Pollard, told the Commons on Monday that the government would not set out its timeline for reaching 2.5% until later this year, despite Donald Trump pushing European countries to spend more on defence. The Times reported on Monday that the prime minister wanted to put the date back until after 2030.
“We will lay out a path to spending 2.5% of defence in the spring,” Pollard said. “We will publish the strategic defence review that sets out what we will spend the money on how we respond to the emerging threats.”
MPs on both sides of the house criticised the government for its lack of clarity. The Labour chair of the defence select committee, Tan Dhesi, said: “We’ve all seen reports over the weekend that the government is allegedly delaying plans to meet 2.5% of GDP on defence spending and to publish the strategic defence review.
“This uncertainty only helps those who question our commitment. The government needs to provide clarity soon.”
