National security? Include us in, says Ashdown

Monday, August 17, 2009

A fundamental change in the way we think about protecting the UK must not only involve better coordination across government but also share knowledge, power and resources with local councils, community groups, frontline professionals and citizens, argues Paddy Ashdown

Over the past few months, the nature of the new security challenges we face has been highlighted by the rapid global spread of the swine flu pandemic. Experts have warned that several million people across the UK may be affected, with some predicting that in a worst-case scenario, as many as 1 in 200 people who contract the disease may die. The effects of an epidemic of this magnitude would be considerable: beyond the serious costs in terms of human life, large numbers of schools would be forced to close, and severe pressure would be put on hospitals, GP surgeries, transport networks and other vital services.

It is important to keep this threat in perspective. The UK is better prepared for a pandemic than ever before, and there are sophisticated contingency plans in place to cope with the social and economic disruption that would result. But questions remain about how well equipped we are to deliver on these plans at all levels, from the international right down to the local.

This speaks to a wider problem with the government's current approach to national security, which has not adapted quickly enough to keep up with profound changes in the international security landscape since the end of the Cold War. In a world where climate change poses arguably a greater threat to our long-term security than terrorism or war, protection of our country can no longer be left solely to the Ministry of Defence. It now requires all government departments to coordinate their activities much more effectively, and to move away from the stovepiped structures that inhibit an integrated and strategic approach.

It also requires a fundamental change in the way we think about national security. Policy-making must encompass global, regional, national and local domains and better understand the roles that civil society, business, local communities, frontline professionals and citizens can play.

At the end of June, the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) published Shared Responsibilities: A National Security Strategy for the UK, the final report of its independent, all- party Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. At the heart of this report is the conviction that action must be distributed, coordinated and legitimate. Distributed in the sense that many different actors need to be involved in addressing the security challenges we face; coordinated in that they must pull in the same direction towards the same ends; and legitimate in that they need to be, and be seen to be, both legal and ethical.

This has significant implications for the government's relationship with public service providers. To build a distributed response and to deal particularly with challenges related to resilience, counter- radicalisation and counter-terrorism at home, central government must do more to share knowledge, power and resources with local government and the communities it serves.

For example, in the context of our response to emergencies such as pandemics or extreme weather, the commission calls on both central and local government to enhance and coordinate their efforts to help communities understand risk-oriented decision-making processes and outcomes and enable them to access funding to build community-level schemes, local networks and capacity to contribute to resilience on the ground. We also encourage local and regional resilience forums to review how they might benefit from further third sector involvement, what training they could facilitate for interested individuals and voluntary and community organisations, and how they could more widely consult on and disseminate their emergency plans.

Turning to the critical roles played by local government and community organisations in the national counter-terrorism effort, the commission believes that more should be done to push power and responsibility for preventive action out to these actors, moving from a "need to know" approach to a "responsibility to provide" mentality. This would mean sharing more information and intelligence with council leaders and chief executives, and police borough commanders. We also recommend that good practice on preventing terrorism is shared more widely: it is currently concentrated in only a small number of local authorities, usually those that have experienced terrorist or counter-terrorist activity directly, and the lessons learned need to be applied across the board.

A more broadly based, joined up and inclusive national security strategy is needed. Public servants and the public they serve have key roles to play in its design and delivery.

Lord Ashdown is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and former High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. He co-chaired ippr's Commission on National Security in the 21st Century