Covid-19: Security Risks
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
We have not used the Rapid Air Mobility initiative at all, so the Turkish flight was not one of these flights. However, we have deployed our assets to respond to NATO requests.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, over these last few weeks during this emergency, NATO has especially proved its worth. I put on record what I think is our collective gratitude to the UK delegation to NATO for its work, especially on social media, to make people aware of what NATO is doing at this point. However, is the Minister as shocked as I am by the recent public opinion survey by King’s College London, which showed that among the over-60s in this country, only 41% said they had any knowledge about NATO, and that this drops to 25% in the under-35s? Surely the Government have a responsibility, indeed a duty, to let the British public know how valuable NATO is to their safety and security. Should they not do more in the information field?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. With the universal distraction of Covid-19, minds may very well be less focused on NATO and more focused on issues of health, well-being and personal safety. I shall certainly look at the survey, which sounds interesting, and we shall reflect on whether more activity could be engaged in highlighting and heightening NATO’s profile.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. We have listened with great interest and admiration, and in much agreement with what she says. She brings a unique experience to this House in all the fields that she has served, and she comes from a part of the United Kingdom which deserves her voice in its affairs. She was quoted recently in the Irish Times as saying:
“Politics… is about serving, it is about reflecting, it is about representing. And I believe the House of Lords offers that opportunity”.
In that, and in many other things, she is absolutely right. We look forward to hearing more from her in the future.
This Government came to power last month with a mandate and a majority gifted by, let it be said, the incompetence and stupidity of the Labour leadership. But even if the Prime Minister has power, he has serious dilemmas to face as well. Leaving aside the claim of “getting Brexit done”, which cannot be done in the promised timescale, he also has on his plate a series of promises and spending commitments that will require serious and very difficult choices to be made, and made very soon. He has promised inside a finite budget more money for education, health, the police and more for the north of England, and then Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will also make demands to keep the union together. He is also committed to at least 2% of GDP for defence and he has to live within the legal straitjacket of 0.7% for overseas aid.
What the Prime Minister does not have is any kind of national consensus on what the country thinks should be the priority on these often competing and occasionally contradictory ambitions. Without some form of consensus, someone, some group, some region, some special interest, some needy area or some raised expectation is bound to be disappointed and let down, and thereafter any popularity will vaporise.
A few weeks ago, I chaired a group of 20 distinguished experts, some from this House, appropriately held in the Cabinet War Rooms to discuss, under the auspices of the new Bletchley initiative, what should be our country’s role in a world of Presidents Trump, Putin and Xi. Each of our experts had to bring with them three specific ideas for the table, and the resulting discussion and report was fascinating and revealing. I am happy to supply a copy to anybody who wants it. But the main and unanimous conclusion was that there is an urgent need for a bottom-up national conversation on where our country is heading and its future place in the world. Brexit amplifies that particular need, but it is not its only driver.
If we want, as many in this debate will rightly demand, more money for defence, security and diplomacy, especially in what is an unpredictable, volatile and increasingly dangerous world, as we have seen even in the last seven days, the question is: what gives way in the shopping list of budget items to pay for it? If we genuinely need to spend, for example, more on education, the NHS and long-term care, crime and punishment, because all those items impact directly on every citizen, but we simultaneously need to spend more on defending and making safe those citizens, what do we give up to make it happen?
Some will say that the election fixed the priority orderings, but it certainly did not. Boris Johnson has an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons but based on only 44% of those voting. Indeed, given that turnout was 67%, he obtained only 29% support from the British electorate. So that, in our perverse way, provides a healthy Commons majority but not by any stretch of the imagination is there any consensus on national priorities.
Can a national conversation with unprecedented public consultation actually be had? The answer is “not easily”, but I believe that it should and can be done. In 1997 and 1998, I conducted with the late Robin Cook a strategic defence review based on building from first principles Britain’s defence on an agreed foreign policy baseline. We involved the public, Parliament, pressure groups, civic society and every level in the Armed Forces. The outcome was to be ambitious. It was trail-blazing and, most importantly, it was accepted. It lasted for an unprecedented 11 years.
Similarly, the Scottish Constitutional Convention was established in the early 1990s to build a consensus plan for a devolved Scottish legislature. It involved politicians—even from the two parties that boycotted the process—and a wide stratum of the public. At the end it provided a blueprint for the 74% endorsement in the 1997 referendum and 20 years of the Holyrood Parliament.
Then we can take President Macron’s radical consultation and conversation which followed the yellow vest protests last year. He and his Ministers went out to the country and engaged his citizens, putting the choices and listening to the answers. Notwithstanding some of the recent protests on pension reform, the yellow vests and their protests have now been marginalised, so it can be done, and in our divided country we desperately need to reach out with the dilemmas, the hard choices and the possible solutions which face us all and then to listen to what the people tell us.
NATO
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the Minister for arranging this welcome debate, even if the short notice given has deprived us of a number of wise contributors who might otherwise have wanted to join us.
Those in 1949 who contemplated or even wanted a North Atlantic Treaty that would be time-limited would have been stunned but hugely impressed, 70 years on, at this anniversary today. NATO is simply a remarkable and unique alliance of free nations. Originally forged in response to the European dominoes tumbling to Joseph Stalin, NATO was, without firing a shot in anger, to see off its main adversary, the USSR. We then saw it become the bridge between the post-Soviet world and the West in the Partnership for Peace. Then we saw it using its military and political power to stop the carnage in Bosnia and to end and reverse the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. After that, we saw it join up with the European Union to prevent a bloody civil war developing in what is now known as North Macedonia—a good new story to cheer us in the 70th year of NATO, with that new country coming into the alliance. After the trauma of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States and, as the Minister said, the invoking for the very first time of the treaty’s Article 5, the alliance took over organising the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. That has been a quite remarkable evolution: from the birth of NATO in Washington in 1949 to the security challenges of today and tomorrow. Those challenges are, in many ways, as difficult and complex as those in NATO’s successful past, but they are challenges that, frankly, only NATO can face. NATO is our most precious and unrivalled asset in our fractious, unstable and highly unpredictable world.
No defence alliance in the history of our planet has survived, or indeed thrived, as long as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and I believe that it has done so for three principal reasons. The first is because NATO has the capacity to evolve and transform to deal with changing security landscapes. The second is because NATO has maintained its military credibility and deterrence capacity. Thirdly, NATO has nurtured and protected that towering strength which is the value set of its constituent nations: the rule of law and an independent judiciary; free speech and a free press; sustainable democratic institutions; separation of church and state; and a tolerance of contrary views. These are the foundations of our free societies and are what give us our moral authority and political advantage in the world. However, as the Minister said, none of these reasons can be taken for granted and NATO will always be a work in progress. So long as the world keeps changing and new threats to our societies emerge and mutate, then NATO, too, has to change.
As the Minister told us, the first Secretary-General of NATO—like me and like Lord Carrington, who came after him, a former British Cabinet Minister—was Lord Ismay, one-time general and chief of staff to Churchill. In his final speech in Bonn before he stood down, he said that,
“a defensive shield has been built up which, though not yet as strong as might be wished, is an essential feature of the deterrent to aggression. Who would have believed that sovereign States would entrust their precious armed forces to the command of nationals other than their own in times of peace? But this is what has come to pass”.
It was indeed extraordinary then and it was true as well, and it is just as remarkable and true today.
What should NATO do now? And what should the United Kingdom—whether in or out of the European Union—do to pay more than lip service to what government Ministers constantly call the cornerstone of Britain’s defence? Priority number 1, in my view, is to maintain the military effectiveness and deterrent strength of the alliance. The bad news is that the 2% of GNP target is met by only five of the 29 members of NATO, with some countries lamentably behind the freely made commitments that they took on. I was in Slovenia the week before last and Prague the previous week making the point about their inadequate responses to the 2% target—doing it in person and in theatre. However, gross figures do not tell the whole story, as 2% spent on the wrong capabilities adds very little to effectiveness. Of course, the good news is that, since the Wales summit, there has been a growth in collective defence expenditure in Europe of $87 billion, with half the countries now spending over the target of 20% on equipment.
Priority number 2, in my view, is addressing our weaknesses—the soft underbelly of an alliance which, in spite of the burden-sharing debate, is still formidable and outspends any potential adversary. That is why these adversaries, whether in states or as individuals, have turned their tactics to interfering in democratic processes, exploiting splits among us, hijacking public debates, dominating the cyber world and subverting electronic communications. That is why, in NATO and in its nations, we need more investment in intelligence, in cyber professionalism and in information dissemination. That information campaign might start here in this country. Can the Minister tell us why, while the Russian embassy has sent out detailed briefings to MPs and Peers on the Russian position on the INF treaty, and while parliamentarians receive in their post China Daily on a daily basis, we get little or nothing on NATO positions from our own Government?
Indeed, I took the opportunity of looking at the section on NATO and the UK on the Foreign Office website today. It has only two items dated 2019, although we are now into April, and both were dated 21 January: one was connected to the statement on Salisbury and the other to the Prime Minister’s statement on Brexit—that was one of very many statements on Brexit but only one is on the website. The only item on the INF treaty, on which a hugely important debate is ongoing in Europe and the United States at the moment, was dated 4 December and was simply a restatement of the NATO Foreign Ministers’ statement. We are not doing anything like enough to disseminate information about what is happening in NATO.
My priority number three is maintaining the nuclear element of the alliance. The American, British and French nuclear forces, along with the other weapons on European soil, have been the backbone of a posture that has made conventional war unthinkable. They are as important today as they ever were.
My priority number four is Russia. The NATO-Russia Council, of which I was the first chairman, should still be a powerful venue for dialogue. Resuming the formality and depth of the NATO-Russia Council would not in any way be seen as a concession to wholly unacceptable Russian behaviour in Ukraine, Crimea and Salisbury; instead, it would be a recognition that, in a hair-trigger nuclear world, we need to talk about what we agree on as well as why we disagree on other matters. The Russians and plenty of others in the world need to be reminded that NATO is, and always will be, a defence alliance; it does not represent a danger to any country or group that does not attack, threaten or subvert us. That message is as powerful and true today as it was on that April day in Washington in 1949.
My final priority is a plea for a return to American leadership. One of the saddest features of the Trump Administration has been their abdication from a global leadership role. Even America’s critics would concede that you do not really miss American leadership until it has gone. NATO is America’s best security bargain in its history. Let us hope that President Trump will take that point on board when he comes to London in December, and I hope that he will take on board, too, the point made to him today when Secretary-General Stoltenberg meets him in the Oval Office.
NATO is a precious legacy, left to us from a previous generation to be ours today. It is therefore our solemn responsibility to reinvigorate and reinforce this remarkable, irreplaceable alliance for the challenges that will face the next generation. That has to be the enduring message of this 70th anniversary.
Earl Howe
I very much agree. We find the concept of EU or European strategic autonomy problematic if, as it appears to be, it drives an EU-exclusive or enclosed, institutionalised approach to security and defence that shuts out key strategic partners and could duplicate or undermine NATO. We see that exclusive approach prevailing in EU defence initiatives such as the European Defence Fund and PESCO, which otherwise have the potential to boost, in a coherent way, much-needed investment and support to capability development. That is exactly why we will continue to argue in favour of an open and flexible approach, to ensure that European security benefits from the capabilities and resources that the EU’s closest strategic partners can bring to bear.
My noble friend Lord Patten and the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Touhig, all spoke powerfully and with authority about Russia, undoubtedly NATO’s most significant long-term challenge. I listened with great respect too to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on this topic. The November incident in the Black Sea has shown vividly how serious the Russia challenge has become and how robust we must be in response. Noble Lords will be well aware that NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, but recent Russian actions, including the Black Sea incident, have confirmed that NATO’s dual-track approach to Russia, of strengthened deterrence and defence backed up by hard-headed dialogue, is justified. We reaffirmed this approach at the Brussels summit last July, and will do so again at the foreign ministerial meeting in Washington this month.
As my noble friend said, Russia will continue to look for different ways to test NATO and its allies and partners. In both words and deeds, we need to be prepared to respond, and that is why NATO is already adapting its political and military posture. We are committed to driving forward efforts to modernise NATO, as I mentioned in my opening speech, enabling the alliance to respond to the threats it faces more effectively and with more agility. To test that agility and to enhance our contribution, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Attlee will have observed, the UK deployed some 3,300 personnel, as well as ships and planes, to Norway for NATO’s biggest exercise in 2018; exercise Trident Juncture had some 50,000 troops from 31 NATO and partner nations. This delivered undoubtedly a strong signal that allies can operate at an impressive scale and move across Europe in the event of a crisis. Again, my noble friend will be interested to know that, in spring and summer this year, we will demonstrate a robust posture in the Baltic region by our participation in the US-led BALTOPS exercise, Baltic Protector and a range of other military activities. We have also deployed 800 Royal Marines to Norway in 2019 to take part in cold-weather training. In March last year, a Royal Navy submarine took part in ICEX with the US Navy for the first time in 10 years, and the Navy will mount regular under-ice deployments in the years to come. There is much else that we are doing to up the tempo of our activity as a proportionate response to an assertive Russian posture.
We are also constantly looking at how we can build other structures that complement NATO as the bedrock of our defence. Last June, the Defence Secretary signed the comprehensive memorandum of understanding establishing the joint expeditionary force with our eight partners in that agreement. This year, the JEF signature activity will be the Baltic protector deployment, a large-scale maritime and amphibious exercise in the Baltic Sea, as I mentioned, between May and July 2019.
My noble friend Lord Cormack spoke with his customary sincerity about the need to ensure that we improve relations with Russia. On dialogue, NATO should continue to engage with Russia when it is appropriate and in our interests to do so, so that we can clearly communicate our positions. Periodic focused and meaningful dialogue through the NATO-Russia Council provides a means to avoid misunderstanding, miscalculation and unintended escalation, and to increase transparency and predictability.
In addition, to the NATO-Russia Council, we continue to use other fora, such as the OSCE and direct mil-mil links, to mitigate the risk of escalation and to voice concerns over Russian behaviour, including its failure to uphold treaty obligations. However, I have to tell my noble friend that, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us, there can be no return to business as usual until there is clear, constructive change in Russia’s actions that demonstrate compliance with international law and its international obligations.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned China. It is instructive to remind ourselves of the words of the NATO Secretary-General in February this year:
“NATO and China have already worked together to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. And our militaries are in regular contact. But China’s rise also presents a challenge. One example is of course the concern many Allies have expressed about China’s increasing investment in critical infrastructure, such as 5G. We have to better understand the size and the scale of China’s influence, what it means for our security. And we have to address it together”.
I would add that from the UK’s perspective China is an important economic partner. We do not expect to agree with the Chinese Government on everything, but we strongly support China’s greater integration into more of the world’s key institutions and organisations as its global role and responsibilities grow. We are committed to our relationship with China, which enables both countries to benefit and also allows us to be frank with one another on areas where we disagree.
The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Bilimoria, spoke of the current difficulties in the relationship between the United States and Turkey. We have repeatedly raised our concerns at ministerial and official level about the proposed Turkish purchase of S-400 missiles. Turkey is a valued NATO ally on the front line of some of the UK’s and the alliance’s most difficult security challenges, and we readily acknowledge that defence equipment procurement decisions are for individual nations. However, all NATO allies have committed to reducing their dependence on Russian-sourced legacy military equipment, and we believe that the proposed purchase would pose real challenges for the interoperability of NATO systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke of the importance of ensuring that United States leadership in NATO is maintained and encouraged, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, expressed similar views. It is true to say that the White House in recent years has sometime proved unpredictable in its pronouncements, but my noble friend Lord Sterling was quite correct: President Trump has been clear about his commitment to NATO and Article 5. At January’s US missile defence review launch he confirmed that he was 100% behind the alliance. Those are not just words. We should recall that the United States continues to invest heavily in European security, spending $6.5 billion on the European defence initiative in 2018-19. The US also provides a huge proportion of NATO collective defence capabilities, including some which are unique to the alliance, such as strategic bombers, full-spectrum naval forces and strategic intelligence. Thanks to the EDI budget, there were in 2018 approximately 6,850 US troops in Eucom, and EDI is only one of a range of different pots available to fund approximately 80,000 US troops in Europe. Since 2015, there has been more than a sixfold increase in funding available through the EDI.
I was prepared to say a little bit about cyberdefence. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about that as I am reminded that time is short.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
I know that the noble Earl will come to my somewhat critical comments about the lack of information on NATO from the Government, especially to parliamentarians, but I exempt him from some of that criticism because he is a shining example of what Ministers should be doing, given his early morning briefings of all-party groups of MPs. I should like to put that on the record but it does not exempt the rest of the Government from a frankly pathetic effort in getting over information about what is happening in terms of British-NATO relations.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments but am sure that no one listening to his speech will have overlooked a powerful point he made about government messaging in general. I had intended not to comment too much on that theme but rather to go away and report back to him on what we can and should do across government to address his powerful points.
I should like to cover the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling on shortcomings in NATO’s internal financial management. NATO bodies have been strengthening the areas of internal control and risk management, as identified by IBAN audits as areas of weakness to address. The Secretary-General has taken the opportunity of the functional review to do the same at the HQ, and the nations agreed the additional resources for him to do so in December 2018. The UK expects an enhanced internal control and risk management team to be established by autumn this year. Unfortunately, there is currently no consensus among allies on the implementation of the IBAN’s financial performance audit recommendations, which makes progress slow. However, I understand that NATO is looking to create a resource executive function—more or less a chief financial officer role—and is due to submit a recommendation on this matter to the North Atlantic Council this summer.
In my opening contribution to this debate, I quoted NATO’s current Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg. I will finish with the words of one of his illustrious predecessors. Dirk Stikker served at a tumultuous time more than half a century ago, with the Cold War at its height and the Cuban missile crisis taking the world to the brink of nuclear confrontation. He was also a great friend to the UK, having previously served many years as Dutch ambassador. Long after he stood down, he reflected in his memoirs on why NATO continues to play so vital a role in world affairs. He concluded:
“However great a nation, it never has all the pieces on the checkerboard. The checkerboard is vast. And the game without end.”
NATO’s achievements over the past 70 years have been remarkable. It has forged its member nations’ individual strengths into an alliance sufficiently formidable to deter all adversaries—those then and now who would impose their own norms of intolerance and authoritarianism on the free world. NATO has made an enormous difference—whether helping to end the Cold War, stopping terror or bringing reassurance to the vulnerable across the globe from Bosnia to Operation Ocean Shield in the Gulf of Aden. Sometimes this has meant conspicuous heroism on the battlefield or in the conflict zone, and sometimes quiet but tenacious work behind the scenes or under the oceans. As the right reverend Prelate so eloquently put it, NATO is not only a military alliance but a community of values—values that endure. Whatever form it has taken, NATO, as my noble friend Lord Attlee witnessed at first hand, has always done its work supremely well. So today we take the opportunity to pay tribute to the alliance and, in particular, we say thank you to all those men and women over the past seven decades who have served NATO with fortitude and honour. We owe them much. We owe them our peace.
Offensive Weapons Bill
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen ExcerptsWednesday 6th February 2019
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offensive Weapons Act 2019 View all Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (4 Feb 2019)
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
I am listening to what the noble Lord is saying and the assumptions he is making about the guns that are being talked about—or in this case, not talked about—and them not falling into the wrong hands. Why does he think the Home Secretary of this country said in the House of Commons that,
“according to intelligence provided by police and security services”,
these .50 calibre guns,
“have been possessed by criminals who have clearly intended to use them”?—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; col. 919.]
Does the noble Lord have better information and intelligence than the Home Secretary?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, if I might help my noble friend, it is possible that Ministers and Members in another House have been slightly inaccurately briefed. For instance, they were told that the effective range of a .50 calibre round is 6,800 metres, whereas in actual fact, it is only about 1,800 metres.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I was talking about the two forms of rifle which are specifically addressed in the Bill. These are not .50 calibre rifles, but lighter ones, which are adapted for use by disabled people and make it easier to reload the round using power derived from the previous shot. That is a .50 calibre, but again, the calibre alone does not tell you all you need to know about the rifle; you need to know whether a particular weapon is dangerous. The weapons used in target shooting tend to be heavy and cumbersome and the ammunition is not the same as that used in military operations.
I have asked for evidence. There may be evidence out there, but it has not made its way to me. My particular arguments are about the guns addressed in the Bill, as there is no evidence of misuse of those guns or available evidence showing that these are fundamentally more dangerous than other rifles. There is also no evidence that they cannot be properly secured through a mixture of physical security and the systems we have to ensure that firearms are only held by the people who ought to hold them.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Before Hungerford and Dunblane, there had not been evidence of legally held handguns being used to massacre people. However, Hungerford and Dunblane happened, and after that, we passed legislation and the country is much safer as a result.
Lord Lucas
Absolutely. We need to keep these things under consideration. However, if one took the noble Lord’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would ban cars because they have been used deliberately to kill people. Any kind of weapon, including knives, presents a danger to the public. Because there is a legitimate use for these objects, we choose to look at how to balance the potential danger with the potential good. I hope that we will choose to do it on the basis of evidence, which says, yes, these things are dangerous, but we have systems in place which negate that danger. Rules on the weapons the public may hold legitimately, plus the safeguards we take, mean this is not the route through which weapons reach the people who will misuse them. In society as a whole, we have adopted a system which is safe and which allows us to live with the existence of those weapons. It seems to me that the evidence says that is the case at the moment. We do not have a recent history of misuse—of any degree at all—of the weapons which are currently allowed.
It is important to keep these things under review, but it is also important to be sensible. A lot of what is in our lives is dangerous. It is the business of legislators to balance that danger with utility and reach a conclusion; there are lots of different conclusions that can be reached. If we say that people are to have weapons of any description, it seems to me that the current arrangements for allowing people to have firearms are working very well. There is no evidence that incremental banning of particular types of firearm will produce any benefit at all and, as a matter of principle, we ought to take those sorts of decisions based on evidence, rather than because someone feels like it somewhere and no one quite knows why because it is buried in the decision-making processes that created this Bill.
My appeal to my noble friend is that we ought to be looking at where this process is going in the long term, at what we should be doing to make sure that firearms can be legally held, and at the security we want around that. Then, when we arrive at that conclusion, we can show that the weapons which fit within that are not a source of danger to the public, by their nature, because they are not what people who wish to commit crimes will go for.
A lot of guns are being recovered by the police, and by and large they are illegal guns because the guns that are being brought in are much more suitable for use in crime. People will not go for a hunting rifle to commit crime with. We are not talking about hunting rifles in the Bill, but the same considerations apply. If hunting rifles were being widely used in crime, we would be fussed about it, but they are not. The rifles that are the subject of this Bill are not used in crime. There is no instance of them being used in crime. There is nothing obvious about them which makes them more dangerous than other firearms in the context of the controls that we have. As a result of the deliberations in another place, our concerns about .50 calibre are under review. We ought to do the same with the other rifles that are mentioned here and come to a coherent, evidenced conclusion about where in this society we now choose to draw the line on the firearms that people may legally hold and on the purposes for which they may legally hold them. I am not saying that there is an absolute value to any particular place to draw the line; I am saying that we ought to do this on the basis of evidence, and nothing that my noble friends have been able to provide me with at the moment offers evidence that the rifles we are discussing pose any greater danger than the many other rifles that we permit people to hold. I beg to move.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
I appreciate what the Minister is saying but this is a critical part of the legislation, where some strong views are held on both sides. Having sat through the debate so far, I also appreciate that we want to finish the business. I am not an expert in this field but I know that there are many experts around, who will undoubtedly contribute. This matter has excited a lot of interest outside the House.
First, I am not anti-target shooting. I was a member of the House of Commons rifle club, when it existed, and went target shooting in the subterranean depths of this building. Of course, I was Defence Secretary and then Secretary-General of NATO so I must have ordered huge quantities of guns of every description. As I said at Second Reading, I am a resident of Dunblane and became deeply engaged in the debate that took place after that shooting. I would contradict what was said about the banning of the private ownership of handguns leading to an increase in the amount of crime involving them. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has now left, also disagreed with that.
I am here to probe the issue of .50 calibre guns. In other contexts, they would be known colloquially as sniper rifles; they certainly have a destructive power over very long distances. I want to pray in aid what was said by the Home Secretary. I am not normally a great disciple of his—I think that he is running for Prime Minister at the moment, or at least leader of the Conservative Party when the vacancy eventually and inevitably occurs—but, as the Home Secretary, he has access to a lot of information that the rest of us do not. So, when he comes to the House of Commons and makes Statements, we should listen carefully.
We should also listen to what the Home Office had to say in preparation for the Bill. The department produces impact assessments—a very good innovation, whenever they were brought in, to describe the impact of legislation on costs, society and provisions on law and order. An impact assessment was done on .50 calibre rifles but, oddly enough, it is not in the Printed Paper Office. An impact assessment on the knife aspect of the Bill is available, but not one on the part about guns. If I can read its very small writing, the impact assessment which I found on the internet states:
“There is concern about the availability of .50 calibre and rapid-fire Manually Actuated Release System (MARS) rifles”—
as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—
“being available to some civilian firearms licence holders. The range and penetrative power of 0.50 calibre rifles makes them more dangerous than other common firearms and were they to be used in criminal or terrorist activities would present a serious threat to the public and would be uniquely difficult for the police to control. Due to the rate of discharge MARS rifles pose a comparable risk to the public and police as other self-loading weapons already banned in the UK. The Government need to intervene to ensure the purchase, ownership or possession is illegal”.
That Home Office impact assessment was delivered to the Government in preparation for the legislation.
In the House of Commons, the Home Secretary said when he presented the Bill:
“We based those measures on evidence that we received from intelligence sources, police and other security experts … According to the information that we have, weapons of this type have, sadly, been used in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and, according to intelligence provided by police and security services, have been possessed by criminals who have clearly intended to use them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; cols. 918-19.]
These are not my words or an exaggeration by anti-gun campaigners, but the words of the Home Secretary. He did not resile from these comments when he withdrew the clause from the Bill, under pressure from a large number of Back-Bench Conservative MPs. All he has said is that the matter would be subject to further consultation. The danger between now and the end of the consultation is represented precisely by the Home Secretary’s warning. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why the Committee should listen to outside experts when the Home Secretary of this country has given such a graphic description of the dangers presented by these weapons.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hold the noble Lord in very high regard, but is he saying that Ministers and their advisers are infallible?
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
They are certainly not infallible—I speak from great experience on that— but the Home Secretary clearly did not come to the House of Commons unprepared and without checking thoroughly in advance. His statements are clearly there. His predecessor was misled and she resigned. I do not think that the present Home Secretary is likely to make that mistake again or that he has been misled; he said what he believed and what he had been told.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in this debate. I declare an interest as a holder of a firearms certificate and the owner of a number of rifles, none of which would come anywhere near the type of muzzle energy we are talking about.
I support the description of our firearms licensing regime given by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is generally accepted internationally that the UK has one of the most rigorous and best informed firearms licensing regimes in the world. It is also generally accepted that the shooting community respects and understands that the holding of a firearms certificate is a privilege that can be removed. Because of that, they are a very law-abiding section of the community. They are acutely aware that their sport and activity can be curtailed should they be involved in criminal activity entirely unrelated to the use of their firearms.
With that in mind, we have to be a bit careful of banning things because they are an easy target—forgive the pun. It is easy to work out where a particular category of firearm is and remove it from circulation. I hold no particular candle for the .50 calibre rifle and I am open to arguments about where the line should be drawn, because one indeed has to be drawn somewhere. We have acted in the past regarding handguns, fully automatic weapons and a number of other eventualities, but I very much support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s contention that before we ban something we have to have a closely argued, coherent case that is evidence based. Just banning something because we feel like it or because it is easy to do should not be a proper course of action.
Debate on the Bill has, on the one hand, largely been about very large numbers of people carrying knives, often using them and being closely tied up with the criminal fraternity, particularly drug dealers. On the other hand, the Bill talks about banning the use of a piece of equipment that is legally held when no recorded crime has ever been committed using a legally held rifle of such high-muzzle energy, as far as I understand it. I am open to correction by my noble friend and other Members of the Committee. We have to be very careful about that. Where do we draw the line?
I quite accept what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said: these are weapons of very high power and very high destructive capability. That is absolutely correct. On the other hand, their utility for criminals is much lower than that of many other sniper rifles. He described them as sniper rifles, and indeed they are. But they are not the typical sniper rifles used by the British Army, which are in calibres much closer to sporting rifles and are much smaller pieces of equipment. We have to put this in perspective and look at the actual threat.
When the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to what was worrying the Home Secretary about these rifles, it occurred to me to question whether he was worried about the theft of these 130 or so rifles, a tiny number, or about one of those firearm certificate holders turning bad. Or was it really about someone purchasing one of these—in America, for example—and turning it into a small number of machinery components, putting them in a container and smuggling them in, as a vast number of illegally held pistols arrive in this country. The real danger faced on the streets is from illegally held weapons, not legally held weapons.
Afghanistan Update
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I very much respect my noble friend’s views on this, but I do not share his pessimism. The NATO-led ISAF combat mission was completed at the end of 2014, as noble Lords are aware. The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces are now taking the lead in the security of Afghanistan, and I believe that they have repeatedly proved that they are capable of carrying out their responsibilities. President Ghani himself has said that he believes that we have now turned an important corner. The momentum is definitely with the ANDSF and, as the Statement said, the Taliban cannot now win militarily. However, I acknowledge my noble friend’s point to the extent that significant challenges still exist in Afghanistan; we cannot get away from that. That is why the international community remains committed to the future of Afghanistan, and why NATO is clear that it is vital to continue to train, advise and assist Afghanistan’s forces through the means that I have referred to.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, as the person who invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, from which the Afghanistan mission derives, I commend the Government for this further reinforcement of our troops in Afghanistan. We cannot too often pay tribute to those who died or were injured and to the tens of thousands of British troops who have served in Afghanistan over these long years. However, I do not think that we do nearly enough to explain to the public in this country why we went there in the first place, how much we achieved when we were there and why it is of continuing importance that we maintain our commitment there. It is important that we get that message over and do much more about it.
I will just say to the Minister that Gordon Brown as Prime Minister made one speech in the House of Commons about Afghanistan. David Cameron made one speech in the House of Commons about Afghanistan. Mrs May has yet to make a speech about Afghanistan, yet our forces have been committed over that long period and have substantial successes behind them. Therefore, will more efforts be made in the information war to get out to the British public why their security and the security of the alliance, which is being questioned today in Brussels, depend on the resolution and unity of the North Atlantic Alliance?
Earl Howe
I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s distinguished role in the early stages of our involvement in Afghanistan and to the support that he has given since leaving ministerial office through his various other commitments and responsibilities. He makes an extremely good point. I think that many of us at ministerial level appreciate that we do not say enough to the public. We do not tell the story sufficiently often and sufficiently clearly of why this mission is so important. We certainly should look for every opportunity to step up that effort. I shall take that advice back to my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and see that it is relayed further up the chain.
National Security Capability Review
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
Does the noble Earl realise that the continued delay in making key decisions about future capabilities is simply paralysing decision-making inside the Ministry of Defence and encouraging our opponents outside? Our allies in NATO will also be dismayed at the fact that these decisions are still pending, still waiting and seem to be kicked further down the road. Is he not concerned that this is affecting the security of this country?
Earl Howe
As I said, we certainly want to make our announcement as soon as possible, but I would have thought that it would be even worse if I were to stand here and noble Lords were accusing the Government of making snap decisions, as I have heard criticism to that effect in relation to the 2010 SDSR. We are not in the business of making unconsidered judgments.
Brexit: Armed Forces and Diplomatic Service
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on getting this debate today, only two days after an almost historic statement by NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels on relations between NATO and the EU. In the statement, they said they would,
“strengthen our strategic partnership in concrete areas”.
That builds very much on the Saint-Malo declaration of 1998, which I played a part in, and on the Berlin-plus arrangements. That unique set of arrangements, although at the moment being adhered to in spirit rather than in the letter because of Cyprus, allows the European Union to use NATO assets—that is, American assets—when NATO does not wish to be involved.
The Statement this week is of considerable importance. I ask the Minister to explain why, last night, it was still not yet on the Foreign Office website. I got a copy of it from a retired American admiral who had spotted it on the NATO website but, given its significance, and given that the Foreign Secretary was there—when he was not going around insulting other countries—one might have thought some attention would have been paid to it. It is good stuff. It is concrete, sensible and practical. I believe it will reinforce the ability of the Europeans to do more, as indeed they should.
That brings us back to the question posed by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling: will our leaving the EU affect our Armed Forces and our Diplomatic Service? My opinion is firmly this: it will certainly affect our Armed Forces and Diplomatic Service, and not for the better. Our leaving will damage the UK and its reputation and influence; it will damage the EU and its partnership with NATO in tackling the myriad problems, challenges and perils that face us in the world today; and by opting out as a key player in the EU side of that partnership, which was reforged this week, leaving will weaken NATO at a time when, historically, the alliance has never been more needed. I remind noble Lords of the letter to the Times during the referendum debate from five previous Secretaries-General of NATO, of which the final paragraph reads:
“While the decision is one for the British people, Brexit would undoubtedly lead to a loss of British influence, undermine NATO and give succour to the West’s enemies just when we need to stand shoulder to shoulder across the Euro-Atlantic community against common threats, including on our doorstep”.
People should listen carefully to these words of warning from Carrington, Solana, De Hoop Scheffer, Rasmussen and myself.
The fact is that as a non-EU NATO member we will be in a small party. That role is recognised in this week’s Statement. I can tell noble Lords, from my own experience forged in the flames of the early part of this century, that Britain being in the group of nations that consists of Norway, Iceland, Canada and Turkey clearly unbalances that equality of purpose that existed with Britain in both organisations. In the event that the EU has to act in its own interests and in its own area, and the United States does not want to be involved—you can bet your life now that that will be a frequent occurrence—Europe will need the UK and its Armed Forces. An endeavour in which the EU was involved, and that British forces did not form part of, would be a very limited one. But here is the rub: who will decide what is necessary? Who will set out the political objectives? Who will lead any military force? Who, if anyone, will determine an exit strategy for any operation? Since we will not be full members of the EU, what say can we really expect on these critical issues? The fact that there is no answer to that question at the moment should give us all serious concern.
It is a tragedy that, just as the problems we face—migration, terrorism, a resurgent Russia, pandemics, proliferation and much else—have gone global, the politics have gone local and far too parochial for the safety of our people.
Defence: Continuous At-Sea Deterrent
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an indirect interest, as recorded in the register of interests.
The Government have had six years to prepare for this debate and for the vote that will take place in the Commons on Monday. This is one of the most important decisions that will be taken by our generation of politicians. The continuation of the nuclear deterrent is fundamental—fundamental—to the safety of this nation and to our contribution to the strength of NATO and the Atlantic alliance, and the security umbrella that creates. It is therefore a scandal and a disgrace that we in the upper House of this Parliament are being given three hours for this debate—six minutes per Member—at two days’ notice to consider whether the United Kingdom is to go ahead with the Trident nuclear deterrent.
It is of course widely known, especially by those of us who were charged with some responsibility for it, that the deterrent exists not as a military weapon but as a political one, whose very purpose is for it never to be used in anger. It is there to deter aggression against this country and our allies and to counter nuclear blackmail that would threaten Britain’s essential interests and those of our allies. It is committed to NATO and, along with the French and American deterrents, plays a crucial and successful part in the defence of the alliance. In the ludicrously limited time that we have, I intend to make three points.
First, as other noble Lords have said, we cannot possibly foresee the threats and challenges to our security that will emerge over the next 40 years when Trident will be in service. As has been said, we find it remarkably difficult to predict what will happen day by day just now. Just look at what has happened, and taken us by surprise, over my political life: the invasion of the Falklands, the invasion of Kuwait, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in Europe, 9/11 and the Arab spring. Those are just a few instances to prove that unexpected events can trigger very serious consequences. It would be recklessly optimistic to abandon our deterrent on a very rosy view of what we think we face at the moment. It would do a grave disservice to generations to come, as yet unborn.
Secondly, we need to face the serious fact that if we abandon the building of the four new submarines, there is no going back. If the security environment were to change and become even more malign than it is today, it would be simply impossible to recreate the deterrent, with all its infrastructure. The decision next Monday, therefore, is crucial.
Thirdly, there is no cheap and cheerful alternative to continuous at-sea deterrence; there are no half measures in nuclear deterrence. Continuous at-sea deterrence is an absolute. Our submarines are invisible, invulnerable and undetectable. The 2013 Trident Alternatives Review, already referred to, which was insisted on by the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition Government and reported to the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary, clearly said:
“The highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture”.
That was not the only report. The following year, the British American Security Information Council—BASIC, an organisation opposed to Trident renewal—set up its own commission. It concluded:
“The Trident SSBN … system meets the criteria of credibility, scale, survivability, reach and readiness”.
It also said that successive British Governments,
“have not considered it prudent to disarm the UK’s nuclear arsenal given the nuclear danger that could yet resurface, and given the limited benefit to reducing global nuclear dangers that such a step would have. We agree”.
I started my life in politics as a young man carrying a banner that said “Ban the Bomb”—and was eventually to become Secretary of State for Defence, in charge of the nuclear deterrent. As Defence Secretary I conducted a defence review, which abandoned all our tactical nuclear weapons, reduced significantly our arsenal of warheads and missiles for submarines, lowered the system’s operational readiness and made new inroads into the transparency of the whole system. In my “Ban the Bomb” days I believed that such a move would start a benign response worldwide. No such luck. Others are inventing, acquiring, modernising and accumulating nuclear weapons all the time. That is precisely why we need to go ahead with the four new submarines.
Report of the Iraq Inquiry
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
First, I express my agreement with what the noble Lord has rightly said about the Chiefs of the Defence Staff and the Chiefs of Staff generally during the Iraq war and immediately afterward. They are all men of the highest ability and we owe them our gratitude, as much as we owe to the men and women in the field. I also agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between the processes of decision-making and the political judgments that are made. I simply point out that, in my view at least, the strength and integrity of the process underpins the reliability of the political judgments.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I add to the tributes paid to those who fought, those who died and those who were injured in this conflict. We must regret and mourn those who have been affected by doing their duty. I also thank those who served on this remarkable report that has taken so long and will require so much reading before we can finally come to judgment.
I express one small regret that the committee was not allowed to consider the military action taken by the Blair Government in 1998 against Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction centres. Military action was taken in Operation Desert Fox, when cruise missiles were launched against what we believed at that time to be the centres for weapons of mass destruction. In a very brief reading of the report, I notice that paragraph 496, which is worth reading, covers the basis on which Robin Cook and I, Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Bill Cohen and the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that Saddam was breaking the UN Security Council resolutions that had previously been there and that he represented a threat to his neighbours and therefore to the region.
As my noble friend has said, it comes down eventually to a political judgment. We underestimated Saddam in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait and thousands died. We chose not to take action when Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of Shias in the marshes of southern Iraq. Decisions can be taken one way or the other but, if they are taken in good faith, at the end of the day they have to be supported, although we must draw lessons where they are there.
Earl Howe
I am sure that the House listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and takes account of his direct experience of those times prior to the Iraq war. My understanding is that the report does take into account Desert Fox but, in doing so, as I am sure the noble Lord would agree, it puts into context Mr Blair’s clear belief that Saddam Hussein was giving the runaround to the international community and was out to deceive. I am sure that that will be one of the points that everyone should consider when reflecting in a measured way on what the report tells us.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating two noble Baronesses who have spoken today, one for the last time and one for the first. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has a very distinguished record, and it was interesting to note that she apparently once whipped the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a prospect that most people in Scotland would find very entertaining. My noble friend Lady Jowell made a speech that was patriotic, optimistic and inspirational. It is clear that she is going to make a big contribution to the House, as she has done in politics up to now.
I would like to use my few minutes to remind the House of two letters that were published in the Times and the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago. One was from former Secretaries-General of NATO, including me, and the other is signed by a series of senior American defence experts. They speak volumes for what the referendum on 23 June is all about and why it matters to this country and to the Atlantic alliance. The letter from the Secretaries-General is signed by: the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the last surviving member of the Churchill Government; Javier Solana, once a Foreign Minister of Spain; Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a former Foreign Minister of the Netherlands; and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Prime Minister of Denmark. We said:
“As former secretaries general of Nato, we have followed the EU referendum debate carefully and with growing concern. Given the scale and range of challenges to peace and stability we face collectively, the Euro-Atlantic community needs an active and engaged United Kingdom.
“The European Union, with its 500 million people and significant economic power, is a key partner for Nato. The imposition of sanctions on Iran and Russia, led from within the EU by Britain, has been a striking example of the importance of this union for our security. So has the work the EU is doing in the Balkans, in tandem with Nato, to help stave off instability in that region.
“At a time of such global instability, and when Nato is trying to reinforce its role in Eastern Europe, it would be very troubling if Britain ended its membership of the EU.
“While the decision is one for the British people, Brexit would undoubtedly lead to a loss of British influence, undermine Nato and give succour to the West’s enemies just when we need to stand shoulder to shoulder across the Euro-Atlantic community against common threats, including those on our doorstep”.
These are the powerful views of those of us who have had stewardship of the alliance in the last decade and more.
The letter published in the Times is signed by seven White House national security advisers, four US Defence Secretaries and two Secretaries of State. It also sends a powerful message, especially since the signatories come from all political parties in the US:
“The United Kingdom and the United States have a special relationship and longstanding friendship. Having worked closely with the British government in our different capacities, we are loyal friends of the UK. While fully respecting that this is a decision for the British people, we feel it is our duty to articulate our views as to some of the likely consequences of a Brexit vote.
“The world needs a strong and united Europe to work with the US to address the many geopolitical and economic challenges we face. The strong bonds between the US and Europe are rooted in shared values, shared interests, and common history. The United Kingdom has played a key role in strengthening the transatlantic alliance. But we are concerned that should the UK choose to leave the European Union, the UK’s place and influence in the world would be diminished and Europe would be dangerously weakened.
“In our globalised environment it is critical to have size and weight in order to be heard. The special relationship between our countries would not compensate for the loss of influence and clout that the UK would suffer if it was no longer part of the EU, a union of 28 nations with 500 million inhabitants … the large economic bloc in the world. This would be true in foreign policy, defence policy and international trade matters, and other areas where the EU is a significant voice.
“The decision that UK citizens will make on June 23 is of critical importance. All involved must weigh carefully the consequences of the decision not solely from the perspective of domestic economic interests but from the broader perspective of the impact on the European and international geopolitical landscape”.
The names of Robert M Gates, George Shultz, William S Cohen, Madeleine Albright, Bill Perry, Jim Jones, Leon Panetta, Steve Hadley and others are at the bottom of the letter, and I think that the British people, this House and others should pay heed to its wise words.
A previous wise person once said that some decisions are so important that future generations should have a vote. I hope that the people who vote on 23 June pay due regard to those future generations.