Senior figures from three major defence firms will give evidence to the House of Lords European Affairs Committee on Tuesday, 25 February, as part of an ongoing inquiry into the UK-EU reset, according to a media release dated 21 February 2025.

Taking place at 4pm in Committee Room 3, the session will be the first in a series of evidence hearings that focus on security and defence matters. “This session will focus on defence industry issues,” notes the release, with the Committee hearing from:

  • Phil Siveter, UK CEO at Thales
  • Oriel Petry, Head of Public Affairs at Airbus UK
  • Jason Alderwick, Director of UK Government and Political Affairs at MBDA UK

Among the topics under scrutiny are:

  • “The implications for the UK, as a non-Member State, of the EU’s growing role in defence industrial policy”
  • “Whether recent policy shifts by the new US Administration on Ukraine and European security are likely to affect the EU debate about defence industrial cooperation with non-EU countries”
  • “Whether and how greater UK access to EU defence industry initiatives might bring added value, to the UK and to the wider European defence industry”
  • “Whether defence industry cooperation should be included in the UK-EU security pact that the Government is seeking”
  • “The relationship between the UK-EU reset in the defence and security sphere and the UK’s bilateral defence and security agreements with EU Member States”

The Committee aims to explore how the evolving EU defence landscape impacts the UK now that it is outside the bloc, and what opportunities might exist for future collaboration. The evidence session will be streamed live and can also be viewed later on Parliament TV.


At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

26 COMMENTS

  1. With a lot of EU programs they need us and our tech more than we need them.

    Slow Eurofudge programs dominated by Franco-German arguments about workshare and technological leadership are absolutely not needed now.

    What is this really about?

    – Euro-tank
    – Euro-6th gen fighter
    – Euro-missile defence system

    The problem is that each military has such differing views on what it is for and therefore does and therefore what it needs to be.

    RAF will want an exquisite long range aircraft
    France will want a carrier capable jet
    Sweden will want a relatively cheap robust jet

    That isn’t one aircraft but a family of aircraft. And there is zero way to make it a single aircraft.

  2. We do really need a pan European zero tariff free trade zone…the whole politics of the EU and the Brexit backlash from that has hugely screwed up what Europe really needs to complete and that’s a total free trade zone.

    Before I get hit I’m not taking about the right or wrongs or Brexit,sovereign and the creation of a European superstate..I’m simply taking about the creation of a free trade zone…

    • Or we could bite the bullet and rejoin the EU. Simples.

      There are enough loons out there that recognise the damage of leaving the EU has done to the UK.

      Plus point. We can return most boat people the same day.

      • DB, I’m still waiting to see what your plan was for dealing with PIP Claimants ? You said that all PIP claimers were Frauds and that you had a plan to deal with them.
        As for simply returning the boat people if we re-join the EU, I guess you missed the reasons that so many wanted to leave due to this very issue ?

        • People wanted to leave to “return the boat people” only to realise – now it’s too late – that we could do exactly that whilst in the EU and can’t do that at all, now we’re out. We’ve indulged the ‘logic’ of these people for ten years… Doesn’t seem to be working out. Time for the thinking people to have a go at the wheel.

          • It’s not the people, It’s the Political elite that have failed those who voted for Brexit. None of those people have changed their minds, it’s still simmering away.

        • I honestly don’t think the other members want the headache of a divided U.K. no matter what the U.K. decides, far too much time and energy was used up by the Brexit talks that could have been used for more important things.

      • I don’t think the EU would allow us back in, and I would understand their point of view, Brexit has broken any trust they had in us.

        • The EU won’t give us the same deal or terms we had before such as the rebate that Thatcher negotiated. We’d probably have to give the EU the fishing rights they’d want as well. Unfortunately the Conservative government never really delivered on the free trade agreements that they said. It would definitely be an enormous benefit to get some sort of trade deal but I don’t see us becoming full members again.

      • We could do lots things -hopefully this won’t be one of them- in any of its guises nor in any of its softly sofly implementations or mechanisms.

        • To be quite honest I am realy fed up of hearing the same old cap about why people voted out , and the regurgitated reasons identifying why and how we could & should go back in. The repetitive ‘arguments’ 9 years (yes 9!!) after the vote took place still being spouted on all manner of social media forums (such as this) about the whys and wherefores by the ‘just and the good’ are exactly why it was never implemented properly in the first place. I find the anguish still prevelant , quite pathetic and utterly pointless tbh.

  3. Those questions are for the MOD and the government itself to define and evidence, including that of industrial capacity policy, why are we asking arms companies?

  4. We could start a sensible convo in the defence budget.

    The Tangerine has managed that in a few days in office!

    Both Conservatives and LibDems are talking about 3%…

    Discuss now that this not an each Cham er discussion but a mainstream one!

    • I honestly think that we will now see a 2.5% for next financial year and 3% as the target for next parliament..essentially the Lib Dem’s have given starmer some political gold..if he can have a cross party discussion to agree that they all go into the next election with a 3% defence pledge it completely depoliticise it.

      Essentially Starmer can go to Donald on Thursday and say:

      1) 2.5% next year and that he will personally guarantee a political consensus that all the major parties go into the next election with a 3% pledge.
      2) firm order for 30 more f35Bs
      3) UK CBG 25 to take over the Indian Ocean carrier duties for 6 months freeing up a U.S. carrier to do some china bashing.
      4) let’s secure your Indian Ocean navel and air base Donald…that’s a lot of real estate money Donald and we will sort it for you
      5) I’m sure you still want to use Ascension Island, Donald..lovely bit of real estate that..but we can let you guys use it.
      6) we really want to be helping keep a lid on Russia..as we don’t want them focusing on the pacific and helping out china..we will keep supporting in the Baltics and will help with any Ukraine security guarantees…

      That’s a lot we are popping on the table there Donald….so what do we get ?

      • I dont think we should be bowing to the Tangerine’s whistle. I think the US needs to be told politely and firmly that they have treaty duties and an expectation to support their allies. Thats point 1.
        Point 2 is that we will be moving to 3%, aiming to get to 2.5% this year and will be focussing on hard power
        So increase manpower so RN can keep both LPDs in service, order more type 26 frigates and another batch of type 31s. Either get Aukus SSNr under construction asap or order a second batch of 3 Astute class.
        RAF- wedgetail order back up to 5 initially and additional plans to move to 9 aircraft within the term of this parliament
        Order the additional 27 F35Bs but supplement that with 36 more new tranche 4 typhoons- with the latest radar and best equipment and weapons load out. – retain tranche 1s as interceptors until the new tranche 4s come along and then sell tranche 1s to Ukraine.
        A400M- firm up contract for an additional 12 aircraft and purchase the air to air refuelling kits so these aircraft can be utilised as a supplementary AAR resource- if that requires ending the frankly appalling PFI Air tanker contract then so be it.
        Poseidon’s- 9 is nowhere near enough to guarantee our EEZ and protection of our subsea infrastructure- the RAF needs to get to at least 15 aircraft within the next 18-24 months.
        Army- Archer SPGs x76 to be ordered, All C2s to C3 standard- so at least 200+ tanks available for peer on peer warfighting in Europe- lets face facts the C2s we’ve donated to Ukraine have been tearing the Russian’s to pieces- those 13 surviving tanks are known through OSINT to have destroyed well over 400 Russian vehicles of all types- so imagine the carnage an improved C3 fleet could achieve. Stop the insanity of only purchasing 64 APS sets, get them all fitted and ensure a stockpile of the submunitions as well- the time for penny pinching pocket numbers on defence is over.
        IFV- get the CV90 series ordered in or the ASCOD with 40mm turret as per Latvia (hope that’s right I remember reading on Jane’s a few weeks ago Latvia had signed for 40+ vehicles)
        GBAD– we need to split this between mobile field army protection and mobile defence of critical infrastructure and defence estate sites.
        Land ceptor batteries reportedly going to 9 but that wont be enough.
        We should purchase 6-9 batteries of SAMP/T ($500million per battery) to ensure a baseline BMD and area air defence interceptor network that could cover the majority of the UK.
        Radar guided guns and direct energy weapons should be purchased – vehicle mounted to ensure point defence of forward bases, munitions dumps, logistical and command control and communication hubs.
        All of which is achievable at 2.5-3%- obviously a small uptick in personnel numbers will be required- army back to around 85,000 personnel, RAF 40-50,000, navy similar 40-50,000 personnel (including the RMs)
        Crucially the reserve forces need to be in place, equipped and trained to surge the army well above 150,000 personnel should that be required.
        Id also like to see the RN get its heavy USSVs and drone medium warships (Slopes/ corvettes) for enduring patrol presence in the Atlantic and GIUK gap. If unmanned then the costs of running such a fleet would be hugely reduced as only requiring maintenance, fuel and ammunition. No salaries to pay, no food and drink to replenish.

  5. That is quite a shopping list. Though I’d like to see an Army strength closer to 90-95k, which brings back all the enablers. I would prefer the Army fill the manpower requirements for its two Divisions to make them proper rather than paper divisions as a minimum. Then hopefully expand to a third division, allowing a decent 6 month roulemont, of operations, stand-down, training.

    One area you have not addressed is the reserves. I’m very much in favour of the Swedish or Finish reserve model. Which I think is fine for less technical roles. How this works for technical jobs is a question that needs further debate, especially when you require reservist manpower for the Navy and Air Force. Currently technical trades working on an aircraft for example, require a number of months working on the aircraft, which may also include written and oral exams, plus being shadowed by an examiner. This is to build up your aircraft type currency. Whereby you will be further tested every 6 months etc. The question is how does a reservist maintains currency for the more complex systems? It may need longer working weekends before the MAA in particular become comfortable with the idea of technical reservist trades.

  6. Navy is currently in a state but at least there is a programme of new ships coming. It might be a good idea to ensure those vessels were fitted for and also with weapons for a change. Navy also needs supply ships urgently. Shall we just bloody order them yeah? AUKUS is still a priority and we need to look into ways of building up our nuclear boat fleet. The SSN capability is something very few countries can offer. It’s a valuable USP when dealing with the Americans and frightening for adversaries.
    Army is in a pretty terrible state. Numbers, eqqipment, support and service functions are all in the toilet. If the goal is to have 2 deployable divisiona its going to need some major love. More soldeirs, more armoured vehicles, more artillery more air defence and a complete doctrinal revolution to take into account not only lessons from Ukraine but also new technologies. Much, much more is required here and urgently if you imagine want to be able to play in Europe against the Russians without getting everyone killed in one wet weekend.
    RAF has too few aircraft. Not enough fasjets. Not enough support aircraft. 3x AEW might make a halfwit in the treasury happy but he needs a smack on the back of the head as a reward and not a biscuit. Our Voyager fleet is mostly tied up in support of operations in support of Thr Falklands and Cyprus. God help us if we had to deploy any reasonable number of aircraft to another theatre. Are 22 Atlases enough to support overseas operations? Do we need some more P8’s? Yes to both.
    Home Defence. RAF needs to acquire a GBAD role for the UK to protect strategic targets.
    Glad the politicians of woken up. There’s a bit of work needs doing.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here