Developing AI Capacity and Expertise in UK Defence

Defence Committee

We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Defence Committee. Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member, not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may also take part in the questioning. I call Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck.

18:41:00

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to present this report on behalf of the Defence Committee. It is important at the outset to say that our report is not focused on the ethical questions that using artificial intelligence in defence raises. That is because noble Lords in the other place completed a very in-depth Committee report on AI in weapon systems prior to our inquiry. In that report, they rightly addressed issues of safety, compliance with international law and the need for a human in the loop. It is also important to say that the key defence documents we refer to throughout our report were produced under the previous Government. However, we have not received any indication from the current Government that they will be making any significant or major departures from those documents. Our focus was on trying to understand what the Ministry of Defence is doing in this area and how it can develop a successful defence AI sector in the UK. Since 2018, AI has been appearing increasingly in defence documents, as well as being spoken about by Ministers and senior military figures. The defence artificial intelligence and autonomy unit and the defence AI centre have since come into being, and the defence artificial intelligence strategy was published in 2022. Our strong research pedigree in computer science and the availability of computing power could put the UK at a strong advantage, and pillar 2 of our AUKUS partnership continues to present opportunities for working with our allies and for interoperability. Despite that, we found that, overall, there is a “say-do gap” where the Department is identifying the right priorities, but has been unable to say what steps it will take to achieve them. Rhetoric does not match reality. This leaves us behind our allies and disadvantaged when it comes to our adversaries. Similarly, we consider the Department’s aim to be AI-ready problematic. Technology is evolving at such a rapid pace, and the MOD will never be sufficiently AI-ready. Instead, it should aim to be “AI-native”, with AI viewed no longer as a niche add-on, but as a core component running right through defence. This will take leadership, cultural and practical changes. AI is a general-purpose technology, and although we do not have a clear idea of the size of our defence AI sector, we do know that it is young and underdeveloped, and that many of the companies that will supply defence in the future are likely to cut across the civilian and military sectors. For the MOD to give to these less traditional companies and investors any confidence and incentivise them to do business with the MOD, it needs to be clear about what it wants. It needs to show more flexibility, be less prescriptive in requirements, address delays in security clearances and fully embrace the recommendation from the Haythornthwaite review about how the brightest minds can zig-zag between the military and the commercial civilian sectors. On new capabilities, the MOD is not comfortable with rapid change, risk or experimentation, but that is exactly how our tech companies and start-ups operate. The MOD’s existing approach of contracting with primes and spending 10 to 15 years building a ship, tank or aircraft to exquisite specifications just does not cut it in an increasingly data and software-driven environment. It is welcome that the global combat air programme is being designed with open-system architecture, meaning that software capabilities can be plugged into and taken out of the hardware, and the new spiral model of overall defence procurement in the integrated procurement model is welcome, too. However, our Committee found no evidence of fundamental changes across the organisation. If smaller, innovative companies are to engage with the MOD, the MOD must be a better customer. Key to developing our defence AI ecosystem is the digital infrastructure, yet the Department’s plan for a digital backbone is behind schedule. Data collection, labelling and sharing, which are all key to training defence AI models, must be improved. Clarity of leadership and responsibility is also needed. The defence artificial intelligence centre is headed by a one-star officer, and we remain unclear on where the centre is based. There is fragmentation across the MOD, as the frontline commands of each service have individual responsibility for AI development, which causes confusion and duplication. Ukraine has shown us that AI is changing the battlefield. AI has the potential to transform UK defence, from the back office to the frontline. In such a rapidly developing environment, we cannot predict what will come next, but we know for certain that our allies and adversaries are using and developing AI for military advantage. We remain hopeful that through the strategic defence review, and the Government’s focus today on AI, and by adopting our recommendations, the Department will start to turn its rhetoric into reality, so that it does more than it says. I want to acknowledge what a team effort producing this report has been. I thank the previous Committee; many of its members became firm friends of mine, despite our political differences, and I dearly miss them. I also thank the new Committee, which has worked very hard to finalise this report. I thank everyone who has engaged with us, including the MOD and the previous Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I also thank our excellent Committee staff, especially George James, who managed the inquiry, and Professor Kenneth Payne, our very knowledgeable expert adviser to the inquiry. I look forward to taking any questions from right hon. and hon. Members, and I sincerely hope that they like the answers that they get.

I call the shadow Minister.

This is an excellent report, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for recognising my role, and for her comments about the integrated procurement model and the work that we did in government. She is right that this area of technology is changing at extraordinary speed, and it is having a real impact on the live battle-front in Ukraine. I make two points. First, the hon. Member said that the House of Lords Committee looked at the ethical issues. I would urge the Commons Committee not to ignore those, because my view is that we need to retain maximum freedom of operation and not be bound by, for example, new definitions of autonomy that may limit our military capabilities. Secondly, the hon. Lady made a very good point about small and medium-sized enterprises in the civil area that are not involved in defence. We all agree that we want to get them more involved in defence, but may I ask her to look at how we share information, particularly if it is secret, with SMEs, as well as with primes? We were making progress on that when I was at the Department. Perhaps, with the Committee’s help, we can look at case studies of civil companies that have successfully got into the defence sector by having a strong link with the centre of the MOD.

I could not agree with the hon. Member more. A section in our report addresses in detail SMEs and their engagement with the Department, and we should carry forward the work that he did in government, especially on the integrated procurement model.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

I place on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend for chairing the Sub-Committee, and I thank members of the previous Defence Committee, and Committee staff, for all their hard work on our report on artificial intelligence—a matter integral to our nation’s defence. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today about embracing AI in government, does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a chasm between the Ministry of Defence’s rhetoric and the reality? In practice, AI is still treated as a novelty, rather than a fundamental part of the MOD toolkit.

I thank the Chair of our Committee for his question, and for his work in getting our report to publication. He is right to highlight the gap between what the MOD wants to do and how it plans to achieve it. That runs through our entire report and is something that the MOD needs to get a handle on. I am sure that he would agree that by implementing our recommendations, the Department can move to a position where AI is threaded through the organisation, as opposed to being a niche add-on, or a novelty.

Military history books are full of examples of the difficulty that defence scientists had in selling their revolutionary ideas to military chiefs and civil servants. Given the nebulous nature of artificial intelligence, was the Sub-Committee satisfied that there is a specialist cadre in the Ministry of Defence that is intellectually equipped to make appropriate assessment of schemes that are put forward for new weapons systems?

One difficulty was that not all the information that the Sub-Committee wanted was readily available to us, and we still do not have a clear picture of exactly what is happening in the MOD when it comes to artificial intelligence. We recommend more clarity, and that the Department be clearer about the skillsets it needs and the gaps that exist. We should look to implement the recommendations of the Haythornthwaite review, so that those with the knowledge and expertise can zig-zag in and out of the Department.

I commend the work of the Defence Committee. The report is important, particularly given the news that has come from Ukraine in the past few years, and the way that conflict has developed. One thing that comes out clearly is the need to be on the cutting edge of all this. The UN declared 2025 to be the international year of quantum science and technology. Do the developments that my hon. Friend is talking about lend additional credence to the importance of that statement, and of bringing those cutting-edge developments to our defence capabilities?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Today’s announcement from the Government has shown that they are taking AI and its potential very seriously. As our report shows, there are steps that they can take when it comes to defence to ensure that the Department is more AI native and has AI running through it.

Throughout the decades—at least since 1945—the development of defence technology has been bound by international law. I understand that the Defence Committee has taken the view that it will not be informed by law or ethics, but I wonder whether work will be done in future to bring together the House of Lords report from 2023 and the work that the Sub-Committee has done so expertly.

The hon. Member is right to raise that point, as we very much took note of the noble Lords’ report, which is referenced in our inquiry’s final report. We urge progress on AI in defence, but on the understanding that the progress is always in line with a strong ethical and accountable framework, and that there is a human in the loop.

I thank the hon. Member for the report, and it was helpful to understand the point about the Lords report. Does she know when the Government will outline the timetable for that report on the ethical and moral issues to be considered, and for those issues to be incorporated in Government policy? How effectively will the MOD work with international companies—this is obviously an incredibly complex area—to ensure that the security risk is massively reduced?

The hon. Member asks me for answers that are outside the scope of our report. She also asks questions of the Government; I am speaking on behalf of our Committee, and it is way above my pay grade to answer for our Government. However, she raises an important point about the Lords report. I believe that the previous Government responded to the report from the Lords, but as with everything in defence, what we do will be in line with what our allies and NATO do. We will continue to work with our allies on the global combat air programme and the AUKUS partnership. Everything we do, we do together, not in isolation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent report, and on the leadership that she has shown throughout—in dealing with witnesses, considering the evidence that came forward, and compiling the report. As she said, she worked closely with, and was given great help, by our excellent staff on the Defence Committee. I served on that Committee in the last Parliament, and it was probably the best Committee that I have been on, thanks to the commitment and knowledge of defence issues of those involved, including my hon. Friend; we were able to put that to good use. She said that despite differences between parties, the Committee was united in taking issues forward and holding Ministers to account. I am sure the new Committee will do exactly the same. It is great that the new Chair is present to support my hon. Friend, and ensured that we got the report out in a timely manner. My hon. Friend probably knows what issues I will raise. First, on AI, the defence field is moving so rapidly; it changes almost by the week. Does she agree that it is important that the MOD and those involved in defence harness that change quickly, keep on top of it, and ensure that we lead the field in AI, rather than following all the time? Also, I recall a discussion that we had about the importance of harnessing the talent and potential of SMEs and start-ups. We should ensure that the UK uses that potential for the benefit of our armed forces, to develop the best possible defence for our country. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend responded to those points.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and all his help on the Committee. It is a joy to be once again serving on the Defence Committee with him. He is correct to say that AI is moving rapidly, and the MOD needs to harness it quickly, because our adversaries are. We know from open source data that we cannot allow ourselves to be behind the curve on this. SMEs have a particular mindset, as my hon. Friend will know. They are happy to have that “fail first”, experimental mindset that the MOD is often not used to. Our report highlights that significant cultural change and leadership is needed in the MOD to get it to a position where SMEs can work better with it for the benefit of our entire defence AI ecosystem. Bill Presented Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Ben Maguire presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime; to require the Secretary of State to implement the strategy; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 4 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 158).