Strategic Defence Review 2025

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register, and I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, on his interesting maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for giving us this opportunity to debate the most thorough defence review for a long time, and I congratulate the noble Lord, General Barrons and Fiona Hill on their work. They have had to conduct it against a constantly evolving defence landscape, influenced by the lack of clarity and consistency shown by the US Administration, the continuing conflict in Ukraine and the enlargement of the conflict in Israel, Gaza and the Middle East.

The noble Lord and his colleagues were also hampered by the Government’s prevarication on the proportion of GDP that will be spent on defence and the timings of the increases. It is true that, under pressure from President Trump, the Government have committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% by April 2027 and have made a further commitment to increase it to 3% during the next Parliament, when

“economic and fiscal conditions allow”,

as stated on page 10 and repeated on page 13. So, worryingly, it remains only an ambition.

I am a little surprised that the Secretary of State has been so dismissive of the Levene reforms, introduced by Lord Levene of Portsoken. I remember that he also proposed that defence must continue to take the opportunity that a joint approach can offer to enhance operational effectiveness and administrative efficiency. It seems to me that the SDR does not refute the Levene reforms but develops them further and brings them up to date to reflect today’s needs.

The SDR announced MoD’s intention to build six new energetics and munitions factories during this Parliament, at a cost of £1.5 billion. Given the depletion of our munitions stocks as a result of the Ukraine war, this is welcome news. Will these be government-owned and government-operated factories, or will they be outsourced to the private sector or public-private partnerships?

There is a new defence investment plan which, inter alia, will maximise the benefits of defence spending to grow the economy. But how can there be a plan before the MoD knows when it will receive 3% of GDP, which remains simply an aspiration? The review informs the reader:

“A billion people in the Euro-Atlantic area sleep easily each night, protected by … Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty”.


But does the Minister think that Article 5 can be relied on, having heard the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and other noble Lords?

It is good that the review recognises the importance of working with partners other than NATO in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific regions. Perhaps more thought should be given to the development of organisations similar to NATO in both those regions. Our Japanese friends are certainly most interested in this, especially as they are somewhat sceptical that we remain completely committed to the Indo-Pacific tilt, given that much of the talk is now about an EU reset. Does the Minister think it likely that consideration will be given to including Japan in both the five-powers defence arrangements and the five-powers intelligence pact?

The review includes the word “lethality” 20 times and “lethal” a further 10 times. It stresses the need for our Armed Forces to “increase their lethality”. I always thought that lethal meant “capable of killing”. I think it now has a new meaning, “capable of total destruction”. Indeed, a huge benefit of the introduction of advanced precision weapons is that, theoretically at least, fewer people are killed through collateral damage.

As the honorary air commodore of London’s Air Force Reserve squadron, I am interested in what the review has to say about the reserves. I agree with what my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Glenarthur said about the reserves, and new ways must be found to encourage employers to support them. Whereas discussion within the reserves in recent years has suggested a blurring of the line between regulars and reserves, and a gradual move towards a regular to reserves ratio of 1:1, as is the case in the United States, the review suggests only that the active reserves should be increased

“by at least 20% when funding allows”.

But increased dependence on reserves is supposed to ease funding pressure, not the reverse. In addition, surely having more reserves very much assists the building of society’s understanding of what the Armed Forces do and provides increased visibility of defence. That should help us to answer the call from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to persuade the public that we must prioritise defence in order to make our country safe.