How Cameron should structure his national security team
Daniel Korski 1:01pm
Reports that the Tories are thinking about appointing a Minister for Afghanistan raise the broader question of how they should structure their national security team. Though the Tories bang on about their idea of setting up a National Security Council, there has been precious little detail given of how it would work, how it would be different than the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and who would staff it.
The National Security Council should be led by a minister, sitting in either the Commons or the Lords, who would also act as the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, supported by a National Security Director, from the ranks of the Civil Service. Unlike the Cabinet Office today, which has comparably few senior officials, a National Security Council staff ought to be staffed by senior civil servants with specific responsibilities—eg Afghanistan, non-proliferation.
Outside government, but reporting to the Prime Minister through the National Security Adviser, ought to be a Comprehensive Security Board. This would be an independent board staffed by experts—including retired generals, diplomats and politicians—designed to give an outside assessment on government policy. Modeled on the Defense Policy Review Board in the States, its role would be to ensure that the Prime Minister was aware of the full set of policy options available to him, and not just those ones that appeal to the civil service.
In Parliament, a National Security Select Committee of both Houses ought to be set-up. This should be properly staffed and able to scrutinize and hold the government to account for its national security policy as a whole. There also should be debates specifically on cross-departmental issues (such as TKTK), and the development of a comprehensive National Security Budget with the Permanent Secretaries of FCO, MOD and DFID as joint Accounting Officers.
The way British missions are run, especially in the field, also needs to be changed. One idea that is worth looking at is the revival of the Resident Minister, these were deployed to good effect in World War Two. These individuals would have the clout to manage all departmental interests, and have a direct link to Parliament.
One of the biggest problems over the last few years has been making department work together. The way to maintain departmental expertise and encourage cross-departmental collaboration could be through a new National Security “Fast Stream” of officials who would specialise in cross-departmental work.
Finally, David Cameron will need to think hard about who he wants in the big jobs. I am in favour of looking outside government, say, to fill the Chief of Defence Staff post with someone like General Sir Rupert Smith.
The next election will not be fought on security policy and none have been won on the strength of bureaucratic reforms. But the Tories will inherit a global strategic situation that is as bad, if not worse, than the economic situation. If the Tories want to address this properly, they will have to reform a bureaucracy that has demonstrated it is not up to the task of dealing with the post 9/11 world.



Previous






Frank P
August 8th, 2009 4:25pm Report this commentThe 'after Rodin' piccie is a bit pretentious don't you think, Danny Boy? Are all the subbies on their hols? Bloody hell! What a poser! Incidentally Cameron bars such a resemblance to Rab Butler one wonders ...? Pity he didn't have Rab's political acumen and intellect.
Frank P
August 8th, 2009 4:25pm Report this commentThe 'after Rodin' piccie is a bit pretentious don't you think, Danny Boy? Are all the subbies on their hols? Bloody hell! What a poser! Incidentally Cameron bars such a resemblance to Rab Butler one wonders ...? Pity he didn't have Rab's political acumen and intellect.
Simon
August 8th, 2009 4:45pm Report this commentHow on earth does Cameron pick someone for a job like this from amongst the assorted chisellers and fiddlers available. Come to that, as he's been on the fiddle as well who will trust anything he does?
Mark
August 8th, 2009 7:37pm Report this commentYou omit to give any role for a champion to wind back the police state: potentially a great saver of resource done intelligently. Other big savings could come from the ability to deport and exclude undesirables.
bill
August 8th, 2009 7:43pm Report this commentRe "I am in favour of looking outside government, say, to fill the Chief of Defence Staff post with someone like General Sir Rupert Smith.": I don't understand this. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the Chief of Defence Staff already falls outside government being filled by a serving officer in in the Armed Forces.
TrevorsDen
August 8th, 2009 8:41pm Report this commentGenarals etc should realise that they do not exist on the principal of buggins turn. They should be sacked if they do not perform and anyone who looks promoted should not have to hang around for promotion.
Any policy which usurps the dopes who run the Fo and MoD is welcome.
TrevorsDen
August 8th, 2009 8:41pm Report this commentGenarals etc should realise that they do not exist on the principal of buggins turn. They should be sacked if they do not perform and anyone who looks promoted should not have to hang around for promotion.
Any policy which usurps the dopes who run the Fo and MoD is welcome.
David Barnett
August 9th, 2009 8:21am Report this commentThis being the Spectator, I do come to this page looking for sensible comments, not fatuous saloon bar rants. This morning, I have been disappointed!
Verity
August 9th, 2009 1:35pm Report this commentHeaven forefend that you should be disappointed, David Barnett. God knows, we do our best to serve you.
The question posed in the headline is moot, as David Cameron is not, God willing, or In'sh'Allah, as they say around the BBC, going to be in a position to form a national security team. (BYW, Daniel Korski, that should be "a national security team", not "his" national security team. He's not HM.)
Craig
August 9th, 2009 1:39pm Report this commentA "Minister for Afghanistan" suggests a permanence that is likely not a good move - realpolitik notwithstanding.
Frank P
August 10th, 2009 1:31am Report this commentDavid Barnett
It's your round! Put your hand in your pocket and stop moaning you miserable ghit.
Back to top