Future Capability of the Armed Forces

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Ahmad in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on his final speech. I hope he enjoys an excellent retirement and has every opportunity to go on worshipping God and doing his best to swell the congregations in our churches. I think he will find that easier when he is no longer encumbered by the necessary political compromises that have to be made in your Lordships’ House.

My noble friends have made the point that we do not have enough money for the defence budget, but nobody is asking why. A tremendous amount of money is being spent by this Government on welfare that is not achieving what it is intending. It is supposed to be lifting people out of poverty, and it is not; it is condemning people to poverty. There are enormous savings to be made in the welfare budget but, unfortunately, the Labour Party in the other place will not allow those reforms to go through. That has grave implications for our democracy, and I would be very worried if I were a member of the Labour Party. If it cannot fulfil its functions as a Government with the enormous majority that it has, one has to ask whether it would ever be worthy of forming a Government again. If I were in the Labour Party, I would be very worried about that.

This comes at a particularly unfortunate period in defence. There have been a lot of false forecasts of peace in Ukraine, but as the Ukrainians develop technology in the amazing way that they have and, with western help, develop longer-range missiles that can penetrate central facilities in Russia, I think we will eventually bring this conflict to an end. At that stage, NATO must ask who is going to fess up, come to the plate and say that they are prepared to help provide Ukraine with the essential security guarantees that it needs to ensure that Russia does not invade again. That is going to be a big test for NATO.

I look back to the Joint Expeditionary Force, which was established by NATO in south Wales in 2014. Two years later, two countries joined—Finland and Sweden—that were not members of NATO at the time. We could expand the Joint Expeditionary Force to become a nucleus of the coalition of the willing. I was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly but was slung off when the Conservatives did so badly in the election. However, I gather from a former colleague that Poland might join the Joint Expeditionary Force. That would be very significant indeed; it would form the nucleus for a coalition of the willing that might be able to change the price of fish in European NATO, as we look to a future in which the United States plays a reduced role in defending European interests. You might have some sympathy with the United States when it reminds us that Russia has an economy smaller than that of Italy. It is therefore a great pity that we cannot properly fund our Armed Forces at this critical moment, when we should be setting an example to all our allies and not be laggards in the business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will feed that back to the department. All I am saying is that there is now a much more co-ordinated, effective diplomatic strategy that links the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence together to deliver the objectives that the noble Lord wants.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made the point about immediate threats. I hope that putting a paper together and putting in the Library will answer the particular questions she asked about what we are doing about those immediate threats, as well as future threats. I say to her that there are difficult decisions to be made. She made difficult decisions when she was in government. This Government made the really difficult decision to replace the Type 83 and Type 32 with the common combat vessel. That will help develop the hybrid Navy that we will need, rather than continuing with vessels that we were advised by the military advisers will not meet the threat in 10 or 15 years’ time. To have a warship that can deliver drone capability, above the surface, on the surface and below, increases the mass available to tackle the threats we face. That is the hybrid Navy concept.

We had the debate and we said, “We’re going to get criticised, you know? They’re going to say, ‘There you go, you’re cutting ships. You’ve taken away this capability and that capability’”. All I would say is that, if I have to take some criticism by doing that with others, because we believe that opens up the opportunity to create the Navy we need, I am willing to take that criticism.

However, I fundamentally agree with the point the noble Baroness made that drones are not the only answer. Of course you need warships, fighter planes and land vehicles—all those things are fundamental—but, alongside that, you need the increased capacity of drones.

On being optimistic, I know that a number of noble Lords were at the retirement of Pedro Serrano, the brilliant EU ambassador to the UK, who said:

“The United Kingdom is one of the most important military powers in Europe with a very important defence industry. If we’re going to be successful, we will be successful together”.


I spotted that when I read the Financial Times, as I normally do in the morning, and I thought, “I’m going to use that”. I am not being sarcastic. In the article, he points to the fact that the UK has joined the €60 billion EU defence loan scheme for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, asked me what the Government were doing to open up opportunities with respect to Ukraine. There is one example that I hope specifically answers the question the noble Lord raised.

I thank my noble friend Lady Carberry for her points about the importance of the defence industry, Rolls-Royce and SMEs. She is absolutely right.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a crucial point about RDEL and CEDL. He has made this point to me before. We made this point in the defence investment plan. I have the figures here. In 2026-27, RDEL was increased by £2.1 billion and CEDL was increased by £0.7 billion, so there was a significant uplift of RDEL rather than CEDL. Next year, it will be £1.6 billion compared to £1.2 billion. We absolutely accept the point about RDEL and CEDL, the necessity to focus not just on capital projects and the importance of resource allocation.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, about partnering more with private capital to try to do that—the defence bond argument—alternative financial mechanisms to support what we do are crucial.

I wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark well for the future. In his valedictory speech, he reminded us of the importance of international humanitarian law. That is important to our country and our democracy. We understand the need to use force sometimes, but we question ourselves about whether we have the legal basis to do so, and I think we should commend ourselves for trying to act, sometimes with force, in a legal way. I wish him well for the future. We all struggle with moral dilemmas, so I look forward to him struggling with that and trying to help others with respect to that when he preaches.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who spoke about the importance of soft and hard power. He and I have talked long and hard about that. Soft power is crucial, but it is not, as I said before, a choice, as he agrees, between soft and hard power. I totally agree with him about the speed of procurement and trying to deliver things much more quickly. I hope the paper that I am going to ask to be put in the Library will help answer some of the points on that. He asked about the defence readiness Bill. It will be in this Parliament, and it is being worked on as we speak.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about complementary groups under NATO. NATO is the crucial umbrella, but underneath that you can have other organisations, such as JEF or whatever, as long as it complements NATO—I think that is particularly important. The role of the US remains crucial. That is the only point I would say. We have to retain the strategic alliance with the US.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The JEF point is interesting. Does the Minister agree that, if neutral countries such as Finland and Sweden can join, then so could Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a matter for discussion between all of us. The relationship with Ukraine remains crucial. How that is taken forward will have to be discussed.

I thank my noble friend Lady Antrobus. We are committed to the nuclear deterrent. I sometimes think we should talk more about it. When people ask what is the UK’s commitment to Europe, it is not a bad start to say that the UK has been committed to the nuclear deterrent for the defence of Europe for decades. It is a proud thing for us to state. I know the point she made about the ladder of escalation and the involvement of tactical nuclear weapons in future through the F35A.

I think the spending review of 2027 will answer some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, made about spending. She will recognise the point about defence and security being the number one priority within that.

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about thinking imaginatively as well as responding in a tough way to Russia and about some of the other things that he mentioned in dealing with that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, that the Prime Minister-in-waiting clearly means what he says about defending our nation. I thank the noble Lord for his kind words about me.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the national conversation, which is fundamental and crucial to us, and the priorities for the public. Particularly important, as he mentioned, are the grey zone, underwater cables and cyber attacks. Those sorts of things are crucial.

The noble Lord, Lord Risby, talked about space. I take the point about Skynet 5 being extended rather than a new Skynet 6, but when we look in the Defence Investment Plan, as I know he will have done, it is quite interesting. I was looking at it while he was speaking, and on pages 48 and 49 there are some quite interesting investments into space. I understand the importance of space technology and satellites if we are to fight the wars of the future, and the noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us of the importance of all that.

I thank my noble friend Lord Forbes for his points about the whole-of-society approach. By raising the age of reserves to 65, we may be able to recruit more of the engineers, doctors, cyber specialists and so on, as he was talking about.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that we are accelerating our war readiness plans. The spending debate will continue, but it is going up; the debate is just about how fast it goes up and how much it should be.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Magan, for reminding us of the service of his own family, because that reminds us of the service of so many families and family members across this country. Again, we will come to a debate and discussion on the spending point, particularly around the 2027 spending review.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a point about soft power—that is a terrible name for it in many ways, but it is crucial to delivery. I will just make this point about soft power and defence diplomacy: everywhere I go across the world, irrespective of the view of the UK, countries are queuing up for the UK to stand with them. They do not necessarily want a warship, a tank or a fighter jet. They want the status, legitimacy and confidence of what a British military uniform gives to them when they make difficult decisions to deal with the challenges they face in their countries or regions, and I am proud of that. It has been hard earned by our service men and women. I think it is something we do not appreciate enough and should speak much more of, because they make a huge difference in huge numbers of countries across the world.

I have mentioned the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, about the article that I may wish to look at. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, about the importance of the national conversation; the plan is developing. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, also made the point about the importance of a national conversation.

Let me say a few concluding remarks. I know that these debates are watched and read. I want to say clearly to Russia, to China or to anybody else who believes that this country is weak, and that we will not stand up for democracy, freedom and the values we cherish, that we will and we do. Do not misunderstand that in a democracy, people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, can challenge me and think I am wrong. They can think that the Government are wrong and challenge them to do more. That is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength, and it is how a democracy works. That is what we have struggled and fought for through many decades and centuries. So if anybody is watching this, let them not mistake an honest, open, frank exchange of views as anything other than all of us being proud of what our country stands for, and what we will continue to stand for.

Russian Shadow Fleet

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise that. Let us be clear that the Department for Transport will ensure that the way in which the oil is dealt with in no way benefits the Russian war effort. That is a matter for the Department for Transport. One of the important things is to make sure that we as a country stand up for the law. The noble Lord will appreciate that the really important point is for Russia to understand that we will not stand idly by, whether that means sanctioning ships or taking action where we need to.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister has stated that the reason why this ship was stopped and many others were let through was that the circumstances aligned. Does he mean to say that, when all the other ships went through our territorial waters, for none of them did the circumstances align?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without going into the criteria, which would benefit only those who seek to circumvent the work we are trying to do, all I can say to the noble Lord—he will know this from his own experience—is that I receive advice from people who are much more qualified than I am to say what is and is not an appropriate way to act in the circumstances. We had advice from a wide range of people that this was an appropriate sanctioned vessel for which we could take action, at minimum risk to our own personnel, ensuring that we could be effective in what we did.

Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Lord’s noble friend, we continue to discuss these matters with the United States. Of course, diplomacy is an important part of any problem or conflict that occurs anywhere in the world. There have to be talks and discussions. We know how important that is. We will continue to have discussions with the United States about that.

As far as the UK Government are concerned, that is why the summit co-hosted by the UK and France in a few days is important. It will bring together countries from the region and across the world. That is why the summit will be convened at PJHQ—to bring countries together. We know that, on the solutions to conflict and the problems that occur, in the end, whatever military options are considered or undertaken, those discussions give you the long-term basis for the security that you want. For us, it is the long-term security of reopening the Strait of Hormuz in a way that allows freedom of navigation—without tolls.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Will the Minister accept that the problem that both the US Navy and the Royal Navy have is that they do not have a ship that has adequate defences against massive attack from either missiles or drones?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s point with respect to that. My understanding is that many ships have capabilities to defend themselves. I am not a military expert with respect to some of these things, but I believe that capabilities are available. Certainly, as the ships of the future develop, they will develop to meet the technological threats that they face as well. Many of the threats that will come, whether on land or sea or in the air, will come from uncrewed technology, and we need to advance our own technologies to deal with that as well.

Armed Services: Sexual Violence

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend again on the work that he did with respect to encouraging women into the service and in particular into the Navy and indeed the submarine service. A number of noble and gallant Lords are in the Chamber listening to this debate, and I know that they too have been right at the forefront of encouraging that. Let us be clear, of course there are unacceptable behaviours; of course there are examples where standards are not met, but across the whole of the services, the contribution that women make is phenomenal. They add to our services; they are an important part of our Armed Forces, and it is a brilliant career for women. I hope many more women join the services in the future.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord missed out that it was a ministerial decision to send women to sea, and it was taken because we were turning away very good women and accepting substandard men. That decision was taken by a Conservative Government.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will just say to the noble Lord that I try very hard not to be partisan on defence matters. I do not really care whether it was a Conservative Government or a Labour Government. The important principle is that women have made a huge contribution to our Armed Forces. That decision was the right one and, frankly, that is what we should be celebrating.

Ukraine

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, to this House. He clearly brings with him a great degree of expertise, and I am looking forward to his maiden speech later. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his excellent opening remarks, said that Ukraine’s security was basically our security. This is a message that was repeated constantly when I was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I got thrown off shortly after the election because of the appalling results for the Conservatives. All the time, it was recognised at that stage that we could not allow Putin to win in Ukraine. Basically, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has referred to, Putin will claim victory from whatever settlement comes out of this.

The extraordinary thing is that we have always had the capacity in the West to defeat Putin in Ukraine, but the trouble is that we have never used the capability that we have. We all know well that wars are won by the grim determination of the troops on the ground—the Ukrainians certainly do not lack that—combined with technology. Technology is absolutely critical. Where we in the West have a lead over all other countries in the world is in the air, particularly with the F35. Bear in mind that the F35 is the only fifth-generation jet in the world and has a capacity to jam all attacks on it. It flies in at 65,000 feet and can protect 11 other aircraft with inferior defences, so it is an absolutely lethal weapon, but we failed to use it. Why did we fail to use it? There was a man under the Biden Administration called Jake Sullivan, and I think he was responsible for the narrative that went, “Well, we don’t really want to remove Putin as a dictator in Russia because we don’t know what will replace him. We suspect that the whole of Russia will break up into fiefdoms with nuclear weapons and they’ll be much more difficult to negotiate with”.

That, of course, was also laced with the whole concept that Putin was keen to deploy, which was that this could all develop into the third world war with an exchange of nuclear weapons. President Putin, an ex-KGB man, knows about nuclear deterrence, even if other people seem to have forgotten about it, and he probably also knows that his nuclear deterrent is infinitely inferior to anything in the West. I do not think he wants to be remembered for saying goodbye to Moscow. I think that much of this is exaggerated, and the Ukrainians have every right to feel that they have been shedding a lot of blood on our behalf. We could have done much to change that.

I turn to the whole question of sanctions. If President Trump has decided that he is not prepared to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, this reduces the capability of Ukraine to degrade the Russian economy by taking out its oil refineries and so forth and making it more difficult for it to export oil. In those circumstances, we lean very much on the sanctions that are being imposed on Rosneft and Lukoil. What I do not quite understand is why we do not sanction all Russian oil. Presumably you could have a situation where some rusting oil tanker is stopped at sea; the captain is asked “What are you doing?” and he produces a sheaf of papers and says, “I’m not carrying oil for Lukoil or Rosneft— I’m carrying it for some other company that was created yesterday”. How do we then say, on that basis, that we will stop that oil being delivered? Perhaps when the Minister comes to sum up, she can spell out to us how this will all work.

Other than that, the coalition of the willing, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has pointed out, will have a very difficult task. We have to ensure that air power plays a major role in that. I would like to see aircraft based in Ukraine, doing their training in Ukraine in a NATO base, not a Ukrainian one. We should then be determined to make sure that peace is maintained, which I am sure will come eventually.

Ukraine

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I add my welcome to this House to the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. He and I have been on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for some time, during which time he has demonstrated a certain steel in his support for NATO, a steel no doubt tempered during his time fighting the communists in the electricians’ union. I look forward to his contributions in the future, which I know will be very robust.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly reiterates all the time that we cannot afford to let Ukraine lose the war against Russia. All I would say is that, if that is the attitude of the West, it has a very funny way of going about it. Let us face it: we win wars by the grim determination of our troops on the ground—the Ukrainians have demonstrated that in full—and with technology. Every time there has been a suggestion of new, advanced technology being deployed in Ukraine, there has been delay and prevarication, whether it is tanks, F16 aircraft or missiles. We are still arguing, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, about whether Storm Shadow can be used in Russia. We should be firing cruise missiles into Russia. They have a 1,000-pound warhead and could do incredible damage when they arrive, but they are not being allowed to do so. All the time, we are saying that we support Ukraine and want Ukraine to win, but then we do not give it the kit to do so.

Let us be honest: even if we did deploy this technology, we would adjust the stalemate that exists in Ukraine a little in its favour, but we would not win the war. The only way to win the war is by deploying air power, which is where we have effortless superiority over Russia. That would make a serious difference. I am not going to push that case yet again, because I know there is no support for it and everybody thinks it would end in the third world war, which I do not think is true. The problem is this whole attitude towards escalation, which has come from the United States, and particularly from an adviser called Jake Sullivan. There is an election coming up and one of the great advantages is that he will presumably move on and somebody else will take over. His advice to Biden has always been that we risk escalation the whole time in anything we do in Ukraine, and therefore we do not want to up the ante at all. On that basis, you never win anything.

I want to return to a recent Question Time, when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that the future of Ukraine lay in Ukrainian hands. I am afraid that this is not wholly accurate. The future of Ukraine and of this war lies with the United States of America. It is the major donor to Ukraine and, if it threatens to withdraw the support that it gives, Ukraine will have to comply. If Trump wins the election in a fortnight’s time, he has said—I do not know whether he will keep to this—that he will force a peace deal on Ukraine before he is inaugurated. If Harris wins, I suspect the same process will take place but it will just take a little longer. The West is not going to live with a stalemate in Ukraine. Indeed, one slightly argues, what is the point of living with a stalemate? If you stand to win the war ultimately, there is some point in hanging in there. If you are never going to win, which is the position we are in now and I cannot see it changing, we might as well settle sooner rather than later.

Then we have to consider what will actually happen. The Americans will go to Kyiv and tell Zelensky that he has to settle; Zelensky will say he does not want to settle; and the Americans will say, “If you don’t, we will cut off all arms supplies, you will lose the war even more heavily and you will have a worse settlement at the end than you would if you did it now”.

We must look to the security guarantees that Ukraine puts in place to make sure that it does not get invaded again. Ukraine keeps saying that it needs to join NATO. I have to say that it is never going to join NATO as long as it has a frozen conflict with Russia and Russia occupies a lump of its country, which is likely to be the outcome of any peace agreement. Therefore, we should look to other people within NATO. I look to the Joint Expeditionary Force, set up by NATO in south Wales in 2015, and made up of the Baltic states, Norway, Denmark and Holland, led by the British. In 2017, two additional members joined the Joint Expeditionary Force, the two neutral countries of Sweden and Finland, neither of which were, at that stage, members of NATO, so there is no reason why Ukraine should not join the Joint Expeditionary Force. The British Ministry of Defence, because it does not want to be seen to split NATO, constantly says that the Joint Expeditionary Force is mainly a training organisation. I am fine with that. Let us set up training in Ukraine, both for aircraft and for troops on the ground, so that we have a NATO presence in the post-war settlement. We must have F35s, because they are critical, but let us have them training in the Ukraine, which will act as a deterrent to Russia ever invading again.

Tempest Global Combat Air Programme

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I very much hope that the noble Baroness and I can carry on working together. Without being pompous about it, all of us across this Chamber share an interest in the defence of our country and in freedom and democracy across Europe and the world. Working together is extremely important. On her question about the defence industry, she may have seen that yesterday the Prime Minister announced Skills England, which will work with the defence industry and defence companies to overcome one of the biggest hurdles this country faces: the skills shortage, which we have been trying to overcome for a number of years. Redoubling our efforts on that will make a huge difference—but that is just one example of how we intend to work with the industry.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, is there not a great risk that the sixth-generation jet fighter will be yet another white elephant, with escalating costs that will completely distort the defence budget—very similar to the aircraft carriers ordered by the noble Lord, Lord West?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, the defence review will look at defence in the round, but it is really important that this country looks at what the next generation fighter should be. That is an important step. Looking back in history, the Typhoon was at one time a project on a research board and, before that, it was the Tornado. If memory serves me correctly, the Phantom was the fighter programme before that. Our industry and research programmes are the envy of the world. Of course these programmes need to come in on budget, make sense and meet the threats of the future, but looking at what the global combat aircraft of the future should be is an important part of any defence review.

Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee Report

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, the chairman of the committee, who was absolutely excellent in the way he carried out the job. I have no doubt that he had somewhat of an advantage over many of the rest of us on the committee, as he had spent quite a lot of time in the House of Commons on the Defence Select Committee, which must have given him great inside knowledge of what was going on in the defence field. That was very useful to all of us.

I am very glad to have been on the committee. I have always believed that, if we are to win wars, we need two major components. First, we have to train and motivate our troops properly. I do not think anybody doubts that the British are world leaders in training the military; indeed, we do it for many other countries as well. The professionalism that our Armed Forces show is the envy of the world. I wish I could say the same of the ability of the Ministry of Defence to procure equipment, which has been lacking for years, even in the days when I was responsible for some of it.

The interesting thing that has changed is that, in the old days, industry used to look to defence to spend taxpayers’ money on research and development, hoping that some of that technology would move over into the private sector and it would benefit. That has all completely changed now. The sums of money that have been spent on research and development by the private tech companies in the United States, for instance, are so enormous that technological change is moving at a very fast rate. Let us face it: defence is benefiting from the private sector rather than the other way around. As a result, technology is moving on so fast that it is very difficult for any of us to keep up with it.

So I am very keen that we should embrace AI. We will be left at a serious disadvantage if our enemies adopt AI with enthusiasm and we do not. It is extremely important that we take this on board and use it to save the lives of our troops and improve our chances of winning wars.

There have been a number of very alarmist stories going around. It caused me a certain amount of concern that the committee might think that this is a business that should be regulated out of business altogether due to the possibility of things going wrong. Indeed, while we were on the committee, there was a report in the newspapers of a piece of AI equipment being trialled by the United States that went completely wrong on the simulator and ended up killing the operator and then blowing itself up. We asked the United States what its reaction had been to this. The answer we got was that it had never happened. That might be true—who knows?—but it is slightly sad as we want to learn lessons from all these things, rather like the airlines do when things go wrong. They share the information with everybody in the business and that makes the whole airline business much safer than it would otherwise be. I imagine that, if this did happen, the United States withdrew the whole system from its inventory and went back to the manufacturers and told them to get their act together and not make these sort of mistakes in the future.

My concerns about the committee being somewhat Luddite were misplaced. The report we have produced recognises that we have to take on AI in our defence equipment and that, if we do not, we will be put at a singular disadvantage.

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, mentioned the question of international humanitarian law. I am not as much in support of this as perhaps I should be, having signed up to the committee report. I am absolutely certain that nothing whatever is going to happen on this front. The committee was given clear evidence that there is no international agreement to tighten up international humanitarian law. I do not think that we should look to international humanitarian law as an answer to our problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, also mentioned the question of nuclear. Unilaterally, we have to ensure that human control remains an element in the whole use of nuclear weapons. I share his concerns about leaving all this to machines: machines can very easily go wrong.

We took a lot of evidence from people who called themselves Stop Killer Robots. I did not understand why so many of them seemed to be put in front of us, but we ended up with these people. When we asked them about Phalanx, they said that this did not apply to that. Your Lordships will know that Phalanx is a point defence system on most of our major Royal Navy ships. It can be used manually or as a completely automated weapons system, identifying targets and opening fire on them if they are coming towards the ship. I would be surprised if it was not being used as an AWS in the Red Sea, where there is the constant threat of Houthi missiles coming in. That system saves the lives of sailors in our Royal Navy.

We should always recognise that AI has a very important role to play. We should be careful about saying that we want to stop all lethal robots, given that they could make all the difference between us winning and losing wars.

Situation in the Red Sea

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the point is extremely well made. All parties are conversing at a certain level. Degrading these small drones and unmanned boats is not just a question of physically destroying them but also of disrupting their ability to land where they are supposed to.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the help we are getting from allies, can my noble friend confirm that the two biggest economies in Europe are Germany and France, in that order, which are importing significant quantities of goods from the Far East and China through the Suez Canal and therefore have a big interest in protecting shipping in the Red Sea? What is either country doing to suppress the Houthis’ missile systems?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. To be honest, I do not know precisely what they are doing; I will find out and write. They are definitely supportive of Aspides, and that is certainly a move in the right direction.

Royal Navy: Aircraft Carriers

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I answered this question the other day. These are highly technical pieces of equipment. We carry out regular tests, and it was a regular test which determined that the “Queen Elizabeth” should not sail. The advice was that it should not sail, and the sensible thing to do was to use the other aircraft carrier. That is exactly what we have done.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, further to the request from the noble Lord, Lord West, that compensation should be paid by the manufacturers of these aircraft carriers for a total sum of £6.2 billion, does my noble friend accept that BAE S might not be very good at building ships but it is very good at writing contracts?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, that is not something I am particularly expert in, but I can see that it is important to make certain that a contract has the correct clauses to ensure that, when things go wrong, the placer of the contract is suitably covered.