Brits 'not safe' as Putin 'challenges world order', warns ex-NATO chief
Britain and its people are not safe amid crumbling army preparedness, a former NATO chief has warned Parliament.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. 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 per cent 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 per cent 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
21 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
North Wales Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Inquiry into Afghan data leak to be conducted by Parliament's security watchdog
Lord Beamish, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), said the cross-party group would launch a probe after considering defence assessment documents related to the case. The peer has previously voiced concern over 'serious constitutional issues' raised by the handling of the breach that saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022. The leak prompted an unprecedented superinjunction amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals, meaning the ISC, which routinely reviews sensitive material, was not briefed. It also saw the establishment of a secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring some of those affected to the UK at a projected final cost of about £850 million. In a statement on Monday, Lord Beamish said the committee 'has agreed that, once it has considered the requested material, it will conduct an inquiry into the intelligence community's role and activity in connection with the loss of data relating to Arap applicants in February 2022'. The ISC, which is made up of MPs and members of the House of Lords, had asked for the release of defence assessments that formed the basis of the superinjunction, as well as other material relating to the Arap scheme. It hard argued that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, classification of material is not grounds on which information can be withheld from the committee, given its purpose is to scrutinise the work of the UK intelligence community. Thousands of Afghans included on the list of people trying to flee the Taliban are unlikely to receive compensation after their details were accidentally leaked. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the Government would 'robustly defend' any legal action or bid for compensation, adding these were 'hypothetical claims'. It has also been reported that the MoD will not proactively offer compensation to those affected. In total, the Government expects 6,900 people to be brought to the UK under the ARR scheme, which was introduced under the previous Tory administration after a defence official leaked the data 'in error' in February 2022. Along with the Afghan nationals, the breach saw details of more than 100 British officials compromised, including special forces and MI6 personnel. The Government has been contacted for comment.
North Wales Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
