UK Defence Committee Report: Assessing the UK's Defence Posture, Industrial Base, and Contribution to European Security

Key Chapter Title List

1. Introduction and Background
2. Recent European Defense
3. Reforming the UK's Defence Industrial Base
4. Defending the Homeland
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
6. NATO First
7. Integrated Air and Missile Defence
8. Mini-lateral and Bilateral Engagement
9. Joint Expeditionary Force
10. UK-EU Relations
11. State of the Industrial Base
12. Persistent Concerns

Document Introduction

This report is the sixth formal report (HC 520) published by the UK House of Commons Defence Committee in November 2025. It aims to comprehensively examine the UK's contributions, capabilities, and challenges within the current European security environment. Based on a special investigation launched in December 2024, the report draws on seven evidence hearings, field visits to Estonia, Finland, France, Ukraine, and the United States, as well as visits to multiple NATO command structures. It seeks to assess the UK's strategic positioning and practical effectiveness as a major European military power against the backdrop of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine reshaping the geopolitical landscape.

The main structure of the report revolves around three core dimensions. First, it provides an in-depth analysis of the UK's direct contribution to European collective security, focusing on the implementation of its "NATO First" policy, its leadership in mini-lateral mechanisms such as the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), and the progress and obstacles in post-Brexit security and defence partnership with the EU. The report clearly states that despite the UK's claims of leadership, its armed forces size ("lack of mass"), failure to meet NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) capability targets on time, and failure to fulfill the commitment under Article 3 of the Washington Treaty to develop individual and collective capacity to resist attack are severely undermining its credibility and influence. Furthermore, the report expresses serious concern about Europe's heavy reliance on US capabilities in key areas such as Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD).

Secondly, the report dedicates significant space to dissecting the deep-seated structural crisis within the UK's defence industrial base. Evidence indicates that the industrial base faces multiple challenges in terms of production capacity, skills, innovation speed, procurement processes, and financing channels, and is not prepared for sustained collective defence. Although the government has published the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) and appointed a National Armaments Director, the past record of insufficient strategy implementation leads the Committee to view the current reform agenda with caution. The report specifically highlights issues such as excessively long security clearance times, defence inflation risks, financing difficulties for SMEs, and supply chain vulnerabilities. It warns that without a substantial increase in industrial capacity, new defence spending may be consumed by inflation and fail to translate into actual combat power.

Finally, the report strongly criticizes the UK's serious lag in homeland defence and whole-of-society resilience preparedness. The Committee found that the "Homeland Defence Plan," intended to fulfill NATO Article 3 obligations, is progressing slowly, its contents are kept secret from the public, and there is a lack of effective communication with the public and industry. The specific content and timeline of the proposed Defence Readiness Act remain unclear, and coordination between departments such as the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence appears insufficient. Citing Finland's "whole-of-society security model" for comparison, the report emphasizes that in the current context of facing direct threats from grey-zone attacks, sabotage, and espionage, building a transparent, whole-of-society defence and resilience system is an urgent imperative.

Overall, this report is an authoritative policy assessment based on detailed evidence. It not only outlines the gap between the UK's capabilities and ambitions in responding to the European security crisis but also sharply points out a series of systemic shortcomings, from industrial mobilization to citizen preparedness. Its conclusions and recommendations provide a crucial basis for understanding the internal debates and future direction of UK defence policy in the post-Ukraine war era.