Britain and its people are not safe, former Nato chief warns Parliament
He told the upper chamber: 'Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe.
'This country and its people are not safe.
'The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia – often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea – challenging the existing world order.
'We simply in this country are not safe.'
The Labour peer wrote the review alongside the former commander of the joint forces command, General Sir Richard Barrons, and defence adviser Dr Fiona Hill.
Artificial intelligence, drones and a £1 billion investment in homeland missile defence all form part of the review's plan to keep the UK safe in the face of threats from Vladimir Putin's Russia and the rise of China.
As peers debated the review on Friday, Lord Robertson said: 'When we say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement.
'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare.
'Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we all believed that the world had changed for the better.'
He continued: 'Sadly, we were not alone in that. There may have been over-optimism, but at worst, wishful thinking, but the brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake-up call for all of us.
'This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well.'
Lord Robertson told the upper chamber he is 'confident' the review will 'intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer'.
Conservative shadow defence minister Baroness Goldie pressed the Government to be specific about the amount of money and timing needed for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP.
She said: 'In this exciting and brave new world for defence, the elephant in the room is money, and none of this excellent aspiration proposed by the review means anything without attaching pound signs to the proposals.
'Ambition must translate into specific financial commitment.'
Former military chief Lord Stirrup said the Government's spending would need to be restructured to be 'anywhere near 3.5% of GDP for defence by 2035'.
'There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this crucial matter,' the crossbench peer added.
Former top diplomat Lord Hannay of Chiswick said forms of soft power such as overseas aid and the BBC World Service should be prioritised alongside hard power.
'We really do need to take another look at the hard power soft power balance, recognising that we need them both,' the crossbench peer said.
Conservative former defence minister Lord Soames of Fletchling said the British people needed to be told what they should do in the event of a cyber attack that knocked out the internet and phone networks.
Lord Soames, who is the grandson of Second World War prime minister Sir Winston Churchill, called for the public to have food stocks at home.
He said: 'I believe that unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence, charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack.'
Meanwhile, Tory peer Lord Harlech, who is a reservist, said the Government needed to pay more attention to the Territorial Army and other reserve forces.
He said: 'For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought. A just-in-case solution. Too often called on at short notice, handed out outdated kit, sidelined from training opportunities and then expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars.
'If we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, then we must be honest about what that actually requires.
'It means giving them the same standard of equipment, no more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities.
'Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even airsoft groups. That is not how a serious military trains.'
Labour's Baroness Goudie criticised the review for failing to mention gender, adding: 'The exclusion of women from peace process does not lead to stability. It leads to a relapse.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
State pension age rises target the north of the UK disproportionately
Increases in the pension age target the north of the UK disproportionately as Westminster closed down our industrial sector, resulting in higher levels of poverty and deprivation, meaning fewer people will live to receive their state pension. READ MORE: Labour launch review into raising retirement age When will Scots learn, and stop voting for these [[Westminster]] parties? Just because they have Scottish in their title doesn't mean they are working for Scotland. Scots need to wake up and vote for independence. SNP, you have all the political and economic ammunition to make the case, why don't you? A Wilson Stirlingshire
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘This is not action': MPs respond to David Lammy's condemnation of Israel
When David Lammy stood at the dispatch box to deliver a statement condemning Israel's killing of starving civilians in Gaza on Monday, he was met with anger from MPs. 'We want action, and this is not action,' thundered one Labour MP. 'Is this it?' another questioned. 'At what point does our basic humanity require us to take stronger action? Many of us think the red line was passed a long time ago,' a third said. The fury across the Commons was evident. 'Are words enough?' asked one veteran Tory. A second accused Lammy of 'complicity by inaction' and warned it could land him at The Hague. A Lib Dem highlighted that repeated UK expressions of regret had not prevented further carnage. A clearly despairing Lammy attempted to reassure the politicians the government was playing its part. 'Me raising my voice will not bring this war to an end. I lament that and I regret that. But am I sure that the UK government are doing everything in our power? Yes, I am.' But as international condemnation of Israel over the horrors it is inflicting on starving Palestinian civilians grows, Keir Starmer's government is struggling to convince the British public that it is doing enough. The outrage in the Commons is reflected across the country more widely, with the public increasingly regarding Israel's response since the October 7 attacks as disproportionate, as the atrocities continued. The government have been on the defensive, pointing out that it has restored funding to the UN agency UNWRA, provided millions in humanitarian assistance, sanctioned far-right Israeli ministers and those who committed settler violence, and broken off trade negotiations with Israel. But it has struggled to explain its export licensing regime. Ministers insist they have stopped the sale of arms, despite there still being more than 300 licences in operation. These include, they say, body armour sent to protect NGO workers, chemicals for Israeli universities and components for goods which are then transported to Nato allies. In particular, there is anger at the UK decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, which ministers argue is unavoidable because they are part of a global programme over which the UK does not have unilateral control. It exposes serious weaknesses in the regime and some believe the government should go further – with a fuller export embargo and an end to all military co-operation with Israel. Lammy has only recently sought to explain that RAF flights that overfly Gaza do not share information to help Israel conduct the war. 'We are not doing that. I would never do that,' he said this week. Starmer is also under pressure to immediately recognise a Palestinian state, both from his own back benches, within his cabinet and from the wider diplomatic community. Ministers say the UK will 'play its part' in working towards formal recognition, with a UN conference led by the French and Saudis later this month a key moment. Privately, they warn the move would only be symbolic unless there is a ceasefire first. But for many, who think the UK should be matching France's more hardline stance, that is not a good enough reason not to. 'If not now, then when?' one cabinet minister said. The government has stated it could issue more sanctions – with calls to do so against senior Israeli military officers, government ministers and even Benjamin Netanyahu himself. But that has not happened yet. Nor have suggestions it might expel the Israeli ambassador been heeded. 'That's unserious,' said one insider. The UK has also backed away from declaring that Israel has broken international law, insisting that while the government believes it is 'at risk' of doing so, it is up to the international courts to reach that judgment. Aides cite the same reason for avoiding the term 'genocide' to describe the horrors unfolding in Gaza. Back in the Commons on Monday, the criticism kept coming. 'The will of the House is clear on this matter: it wants action, not words. Why are you not hearing that?' a Labour MP asked. 'How could I not?' the foreign secretary responded. But while Lammy may have got the message, he appears to remain restricted by both the caution of the UK prime minister, and the realpolitik that there is only one foreign power that could single-handedly force an end to the conflict: the US. 'I wish we could, but the truth is … we are unable to do that just as the United Kingdom,' he told MPs. 'We have to work in partnership with our allies.' But for many, that will not be enough.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Why would I want a wealth tax, Rachel Reeves, when I want to be rich?
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has refused to rule out the prospect of a 'wealth tax', which, as I understand it, would affect those with more than £10 million in assets. That's loopy, to my mind. Or, to put it another way, if having more than £10 million is so spectacularly evil, why do I want £10 million (and rising) more than anything else on earth? It looks splendid. Indeed, as I would shout from my yacht, or house with circular drive: 'This is splendid! Highly recommend!' Obviously I wouldn't go on about no longer having to park on the straight drive otherwise known as 'the street'. I wouldn't wish to rub people's faces in it. I'm not a monster. And I've had many happy years parking on 'the street' where my car has either been nicked or gone over. • Rachel Reeves refuses to rule out wealth tax despite fresh warnings The last time it was gone over the perpetrator took a pair of Wellington boots but left a crack pipe behind on the back seat, so I think that made us even-stevens. But the bottom line is that those socialist types who argue that accruing vast wealth is somehow wrong are missing one important fact: I would really love it. 'I really love this!' I would also shout. 'Park wherever!' I may host a ball. I may host a party in Venice and annoy everyone who lives there. Why not? I'm rich. Although, essentially, I would stay the same. I would keep humble. My friends today, some of whom go way back, would stay my friends, until I dumped them. One would have to be choosy. My yacht, Princess Bora, won't be able to accommodate all and sundry. You can't have anyone and everyone turning up expecting to park on your circular drive. They're circular, circular drives, but not endless. And I would have to make space for Orlando Bloom and Tom Cruise and the Kardashians, who seem to turn up wherever any rich person is to be found, even though they don't go far back and barely know them. 'Orlando, Tom, Kim, park wherever!' It'll be epic. It will be terrific. Katy Perry, she'll be along, just you wait and see. I may even purchase a private island, bus other millionaires and billionaires out there, and fill it with sexual playthings. Why not? I'm rich. As for my family? Honestly, I don't know if they'd be up to it. It pains me to say it but it's true. We've not had a single 'rift' to date so are they even capable of a rift? I sometimes want to shake them while saying: 'What does one have to do to get a rift up and running around here?' Imagine how embarrassing it'll be mingling with the Beckhams, say, without a single rift to your name. I'd probably even decline David and Victoria's invitations because I wouldn't wish to turn up with no rift to give them. The shame that none of my kids has had the good sense to marry someone I don't like. So my family are an issue. I don't even know if they have it in them to tear each other's throats out over a will when I'm gone. How sad, to leave behind a family with nothing to tear each other'sthroats out for. Just an old car with an inherited crack pipe on the back seat. I can't bear the thought of it. Meanwhile, I may buy X and shout abuse day and night. Why not? I'm rich. People will want to hear the horrible things I have to say. This is why I don't have any truck with anyone who says wealth should be more evenly spread, because what they are not factoring in is how brilliant it would be if I had a decent chunk of it. And, having come from nothing, I do truly believe I'd stay grounded. I certainly wouldn't call upon my staff in the middle of the night unless it was an emergency and I felt like a small bowl of ice cream or a tickle. I would still come into the office once in a blue moon or possibly never. And it goes without saying I will inevitably pop up in that box at Wimbledon while those who can less afford it have to buy their tickets. Why not? I'm rich. Highly recommend. As it is my birthday next week I thought I'd release a video like the one released for Prince George's 12th birthday. He's a cutie, that little fella, but I am a cutie too, let's not forget. I think it's even why, the other day, a young woman offered me her seat on the bus. • Photo and video released for Prince George's 12th birthday This level of cuteness can't be left to stand, she was probably thinking. That video is lovely and mine will, I hope, be lovely too. I've yet to approach my siblings about walking across a sunny field in Norfolk hand-in-hand but I can't see why they'd demur. True, my brother, when we were little, would not hold any of his sisters' hands. Or, if he was forced to, would pull his jumper sleeve down so he wouldn't 'catch something'. I don't know how I'm going to talk him into a friendship bracelet. He'll just have to go with it. 'We need to look happy and natural,' I will tell him, while pulling up his jumper sleeve. I think he'll be into leaning on a rustic gate, though. My sister and I will, probably, be wearing very sweet cardigans that will instantly sell out. I do love the royal birthday video. It's an adorable way to give back to the public and, as you know, I'm all about giving back. I would give back the crack pipe if I knew whence it came. And we are all as cute as Prince Louis, that's for sure. It's the missing teeth.
