Member News
Over the festive season ePolitix.com is publishing some of the best articles and interviews of 2009 from our sister publication The House Magazine.
In June former Nato secretary-general and defence secretary Lord Robertson and former Royal Marine and Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown made a joint call for fundamental reform of armed forces procurement.
It is no secret that the armed forces have been subject to strain and overstretch in recent years. The level of operational commitment, principally in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been intense and the risks experienced by service personnel, and the strains endured by service families, have been high.
The government seems set to continue with plans to maintain and purchase conventional war-fighting capability on a large scale: aircraft carriers, fast jets, and large quantities of important but expensive technology are still planned.
There has been controversy on the quality of housing, welfare, medical and other support services for both serving personnel and veterans. In the absence of a major increase in the defence budget, most serious commentators believe the situation cannot continue as it is. We share that view.
One common response is to say we need a new strategic defence review to underpin difficult choices that undoubtedly will have to be made.
This also misses the point. We do indeed need a strategic review, but security today is about far more than defence.
There is no single threat and no one front line. We have to think across a broad geographical and conceptual front: from the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the pig farms of Mexico and the streets of our own communities; from the familiar images of conventional war to the hidden menaces of hatred and ideological extremism. Defence is just one security instrument among many in this environment.
Consequently, in our view, the practice of conducting periodic strategic defence reviews needs to be replaced with a regular, five-yearly, Strategic Review of Security (SRS).
The SRS should consider all security challenges facing the country, and the full balance of capabilities the UK needs to offer an effective response.
Any such review should incorporate a thorough look at the UK's defence requirements, but should also examine what other non-defence capabilities are required and what the appropriate balance between defence and other capabilities is likely to be.
The need for an SRS is urgent. We recognise it will not be conducted before the next general election, but the first SRS should be conducted as soon as possible thereafter, and preparatory work to underpin it should commence in government now.
Decisions taken in its absence will be tactical and cost-driven, rather than the product of a major and holistic re-think of our security circumstances.
The shift to a five-yearly Strategic Review of Security should also be set within wider changes to the machinery of government.
Although the UK published its first ever National Security Strategy (NSS) in 2008, and an annual update of the strategy is due this month, it is not at all clear that the NSS has had any serious impact on departmental practice, has led to improved joining-up of activities across departments, or influenced the allocations of resources.
We still have stove-piped institutions trying to deal with a very diverse and complex environment, and a mismatch between issues identified as priorities in the NSS and the level of resource allocated to deal with them.
Government should tackle this problem head-on. The existing ministerial committee on National Security, International Relations and Development (NSID) should be developed into a National Security Council at the heart of government.
The NSC, which would remain a ministerial committee, should meet regularly and be formally chaired by either the prime minister or another very senior political figure from the cabinet.
Its central task should be to develop a clear understanding of the national security challenges facing the country, and a joined-up cross-departmental strategic response spanning defence, diplomacy, aid, policing, private sector activity and a role for local community engagement.
In order to ensure that national security strategy shapes the allocation of resources to departments, the government should also create a single security budget.
This should cover the entire national security terrain and be a tool to ensure the National Security Council has full visibility of all government spending on security, can make informed trade-offs between different security investment priorities, has a ready facility to transfer financial resources between departmental budgets if necessary, and can do so in the most effective and openly accountable way possible.
These innovations would not remove the dilemmas associated with a shortage of resources but would they would provide a more effective platform than the traditional strategic defence review from which to address those dilemmas strategically.
It is when resources are tight, as they are now, that real strategic thinking is most important.
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd