Strategic Defence Review 2025

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to welcome the SDR. Like the vast majority of speakers, we on these Benches feel that the work of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team, particularly Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons, has been remarkable; it really does give us an integrated defence review, whereas recent iterations of the so-called integrated security and defence review were a little more fragmented and less strategic than might have been desirable.

We echo the sense from around the Chamber that this SDR has understood the context of the challenges that we in the United Kingdom and our NATO partners and allies face. We also agree with the sentiment in the review—and across the Chamber—that we are at daily risk from cyberattacks and other routes from Russia, and other potential hostile actors. Although the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, thinks the dangers have perhaps been overstated, it is vital that this SDR has understood the challenges of the post-Cold War period. As several speakers have pointed out, we in the West have been rather complacent for too long. We took the Cold War peace dividend and we stayed that way until we got to a point at which Russia could say, “Actually, the West isn’t prepared”. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, about defence expenditure in the 1930s, and we are now in a similar situation.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I ask the Minister how His Majesty’s Government envisage increasing defence expenditure. Throughout the election and all the way to the NATO summit, all we heard was that the commitment was going to be 2.7%, and then 3% when the financial circumstances allowed. The current wording of the SDR reflects that, and the review team were told to assume 2.5%; that was in the remit. As I understand it, the review team pointed out that more money was needed. However, the NATO commitment to 3.5% of GDP on hard defence expenditure and 1.5% on critical infrastructure and resilience suddenly changes the dynamics to some extent.

As we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, there is the question of what we do with the money—how we plan to spend it and when. The numbers are one thing, but the commitment is important. That sends certain signals, not just to our allies and adversaries but potentially to the defence-industrial base, the primes and the subprimes that they may need to ready themselves to build and increase production. Unless there is certainty in terms of letting the contracts and some clarity about what is happening between now and 2035, those companies are not going to start building up their production. For the subprimes and the very small companies in particular, new innovation is going to be very difficult. Can the Minister explain to the House a little bit about the Treasury’s and the MoD’s vision on expenditure?

Several noble and noble and gallant Lords have talked about resilience. The “whole-of-society approach” would indeed be vital. The review talks particularly about the importance of having a national conversation. Do His Majesty’s Government have any idea about how that national conversation should be initiated? We have heard today that it needs to be led from the top—from the Prime Minister. Maybe I have not been listening. Maybe, a bit like waiting for the third speaker in the gap, who did not exist, I have just been missing the Prime Minister when he has been trying to initiate the conversation. Have people in Paddington, the patch of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, been hearing the Prime Minister saying it is vital that we begin to look at our own critical infrastructure, rebuild defence and spend money on defence? In his very welcome return, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, pointed out that Denis Healey had made the point that if you cut defence expenditure too far, there are no houses, hospitals or schools. I have not heard either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State saying that—are we going to?

In terms of examples, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, was beginning to give some ideas of encouraging children and young people to find out about defence. We have heard from various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about cadets. Cadets are part of the way in to recruiting young people, although, obviously, it is not supposed to be a direct move from being in the cadets to full-time military service or being a reservist. Yet has not funding for the cadet forces been cut? Are His Majesty’s Government delivering what they are promising and what is needed in terms of thinking through the position of the cadets and, in particular, the commitment to the reserves? As my noble friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the phrasing in the SDR says that we need to increase the size of the reserves by 20% but immediately says “when funding allows”. So far, the commitments, apart from the commitment at the NATO summit, are still incremental. Increasing the size of the reserves in the 2030s does not suggest any real sense of urgency. Are the Government really committed to increasing the size of the reserves but also to doing what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, pointed out—making sure that there is equality of treatment for the reserves and that they have the same kit and training as the regulars?

In terms of parity of esteem and equality, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned that next year we will have a new Armed Forces Bill in the five-year cycle. Given that the SDR is talking about the need to have much more interoperability between the three services, will we see that reflected in policy, but also through the Armed Forces Bill, or is there some other way in which His Majesty’s Government are envisaging making sure that that interoperability will come about?

Linking to wider aspects of interoperability, “NATO first” is a very clear message, and it is always followed up by Ministers of Defence saying, “NATO first, but not only”. The moves to co-operation and bilateral defence agreements with Germany and France have been extremely welcome. My noble friend Lord Wallace did not like the term “minilateralism”, but for many of us it explains precisely what this Government seem to want to do. Will it be done in a joined-up way as part of a strategy, reflecting the language used by the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, in his very welcome maiden speech, when he talked about the importance of joined-up policy? Are bilateralism and minilateralism intended to be part of a joined-up strategy to enable the UK to play a role as part of the E3, but also to ensure that we have a really effective arm of NATO? While I do not expect the Minister to say anything other than that the relationship with the United States as close as it has ever been and as close as it needs to be, are we making sure that we are strengthening the European arm of NATO—whether the United States is with us or whether we are having to act alone?

I will make two very short final points. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones could not be with us today, so he sent me many questions and said, “Maybe you would like to ask one of these”. I do not propose to ask too many of them. The questions were about autonomous weapons. One specific question is: what thinking have His Majesty’s Government done about ensuring that, if we have autonomous weapons systems, there is always a human in the chain?

Finally, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about the non-proliferation treaty. We on these Benches are committed to having a nuclear deterrent, but it is also right that this country does everything it can to look to de-escalation and moving down the ladder of nuclear capabilities. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in 2026 this country plays a key role in the non-proliferation treaty review?