The last post?

by Charlie Edwards

The FT leader summed up the Queen’s speech perfectly, ‘the programme still includes some substantial and worthwhile initiatives, such as the pensions bill and the incapacity bill…the exception to this sense of being becalmed is the Home Office where a bit less activity would have been welcomed.’

Most of the newspapers in their digest of the Queen’s Speech noted that Labour Government has introduced more than 50 Home Office Bills since 1997. Some of these are important (if not controversial) but once again (the FT says) more does not necessarily mean better (or safer). This law-making frenzy will make no impact on crime and national security if there is a shortage of effective administrators to run the services over which it provides.


We are soon to begin a project on the public value of security which aims to review the UK’s security architecture and identify whether it can meet the threats of the 21st century. While legislation will be one important tool it will by no means be the answer – something John Reid, I think, has been distracted by. The Home Office and other relevant security agencies have got to become much smarter about how they operate in the future.  

Some senior officials within Government believe that it is the Home Office’s culture which must change. Yet faced with the choice of major reform or ‘action’ through legislation the department will most likely opt for the latter.

 

Duncan O'Leary

I thought Michael Portillo wrote a  good peice on this in the Sunday Times. His basic argument was that:'A series of measures produced more or less hysterically over recent years does not amount to a strategy.Reid might just produce one. He is interested in organisation and government process, whereas Blair has never paid enough attention to either. Thwarting terror conspiracies is likely to depend more on good leadership of the agencies and co-operation than on how long we detain suspects.'

Charlie Edwards

Staying with the Tory theme - David Cameron is giving a speech tomorrow on the security challenges facing Britain. It should be quite interesting. The big test though will be how much he focuses on threats other than terrorism... - I think there is a growing case for a national security strategy - I make the case for a security strategy in an article this week - the arguement in a nutshell : - the UK faces a broad set of complex threats- Without a strategic framework for departments and agencies to operate within, Whitehall continues to suffer from the duplication of resources, mixed messages from politicians and infighting between departments. -The current system is opaque, both for those people who work in it and for the wider public.- Commentators, frustrated by the lack of ‘joined-up government’ frequently call for ‘leadership’, yet this tends to overestimate the influence of politicians who focus much of their work on the short term and senior officials whose systems of governance are invariably unable to adapt to dramatic changes in circumstance.- Given the important role the private sector play, a national security strategy would have to articulate the roles and responsibilities of both parties in the protection of the CNI. - A national security strategy would also play an invaluable role in communicating the current and future security environment to British citizens.

New Comment