All Britons want to live in a secure environment and to feel that the government is doing its utmost to bring this about. But we also want to continue to live in a free society, open to people and ideas on which much of our prosperity is built in the twenty first century. The Conservative Party does not believe that there is a zero sum between freedom and government led security measures – less of the first will not give greater strength to the second. But we do think some important measures are needed to increase the protection this country is afforded against risk and to reinforce our ability to withstand and recover from shocks. There will be no real security in our homeland without greater depth to our resilience than is currently the case.
First, in deciding the relative importance of threats and hazards the practice of risk assessment in government needs to be more sophisticated. Here is an example. In its recently published National Security Strategy, the Labour Government set out its analysis of the threats and hazards facing this country. While we agree with an all hazards approach to resilience and the four point CONTEST framework, we do not accept all the Government’s assessment. We do not for instance agree that pandemics pose a higher risk than terrorism. This is because the effects of terrorism are not confined to the material damage caused, which arguably may be less than the consequences of a major pandemic. It is because terrorists may succeed in their aim of making us take repressive measures which create a divided, mistrustful and less free society: a dreadful outcome. Thus, assessment of impact cannot be confined to purely material considerations. It is not just a slogan to say that a Conservative Government will have the preservation of our values as a central driver of homeland security policy.
The Conservative Party is also clear that to achieve effective resilience the assessment of risk needs to be more widely understood than it is at present. We need to engage the public. The Government’s National Risk Register goes some way but its real value will depend on the quality of the information supporting it which is not yet tested.
Secondly, we need a strategic approach to the protection of critical sectors. The Government will claim that it has already done much. But there are some glaring gaps. Is it good enough, for instance, in an era of UK net dependency on foreign gas sources, that to cover an emergency we have only around two weeks reserve supply while Germany has about 88 days and France 172?
The institution of a proper National Security Council (NSC) will provide the machinery at the centre of government to identify and assess risks to national security on a more comprehensive basis than at present and, with the lead department responsible, to develop the appropriate response. Within this framework, to monitor on a continuous basis the resilience of essential services, the existing Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure should then be charged with reporting to the NSC on the state of the country’s essential sectors and critical assets. We must be sure of their ability to withstand domestic and international shocks. Clearly effective cooperation with owners – frequently in the private sector – will be of great importance here.
Thirdly, we need a more concerted approach to the security of our borders. Despite having created the UK Border Agency, which the Government claims represents an integrated and unified border force, its approach is once again simply not strategic enough. There are still numerous other bodies involved with differing remits, powers and track records of effectiveness. These include the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the British Transport Police, TRANSEC and elements of the Home Office and the police services. In the words of the Border Security Advisory Committee appointed by the Conservative Party and chaired by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens, this disjointed structure ‘has resulted in key duties not being carried out, resources not [being] properly allocated, organisations not working together as they should and focus being placed on narrow border security issues, specific to each agency and not [to] the overall border security picture of the UK.’ In the light of this indictment a Conservative Government will create a unified border police force with full powers of pursuit and arrest.
Finally, among the organisational reforms we wish to carry out is the institution of a small military homeland command with a standing and trained regular force contribution to support civil powers in emergencies. It may surprise readers to learn that the contribution of our armed forces to ‘Military Assistance to the Civil Authorities’ (MACA) tasks is only declaratory. While we have no intention of displacing the primary role of civil powers in an emergency, it is wrong not to have the absolute certainty that our armed forces will be available when needed. We cannot discount multiple or prolonged crises or such horrors as a terrorist plot involving a CBRN device. In such circumstances the nation would need the organisational capability and active involvement of the military in the emergency response. This cannot be left to the off chance. It needs to be provided for.
Our aim, overall, is to pursue a comprehensive and strategic approach to homeland security. Government at all levels must give leadership and develop a strong policy framework. But as our safety concerns us all, a Conservative Government will consult and work with all sectors of the community – public, private and voluntary – on policy formulation and implementation.