Good decision-making and implementation require effective coordination of all actors within and beyond government. The election is an opportunity for a new government – of whatever party – to review and refresh the central machinery for making and implementing national security decisions.
The most recent example of such a refresh occurred after the 2010 general election. The coalition government created three innovations: a National Security Council (NSC); a National Security Adviser (NSA); and a National Security Secretariat. The reforms were a logical next step following various changes to the central coordination machinery and advisory roles, particularly after 2001 in the effort to counter terrorism.
These reforms have endured to the present. Different prime ministers have used the machinery in different ways – and with different degrees of effectiveness. National security issues transcend traditional Whitehall siloes of domestic and foreign policy, underlining the need for active coordination from the centre of government. Moreover, there is no single, permanently good way to configure these arrangements. Changes, such as a new approach to recruitment, can improve how the machinery supports the Prime Minister, but much still depends on how the Prime Minister actually wants to operate.
The National Security Council
The NSC is a Cabinet committee. At its best, it meets regularly with the Prime Minister as chair and ensures that a small number of the government’s most senior ministers have an opportunity to deliberate with the benefit of an open forum of senior advisers from across government. Keeping the NSC small is important for the flow of its business: eight to ten standing attendees being about average since 2010, with more ministerial participation in sub-committees or ad hoc at the Prime Minister’s invitation.
The NSC has been particularly prized by the UK’s intelligence agencies, because it regularised the connection between intelligence and policy. Critics have debated whether the NSC should be primarily a strategic forum or a place to force delivery and implementation. In reality, it will and should always be both. The balance depends (as always) on events and on the way the whole process is managed.
The NSC offers any Prime Minister a regular mechanism for ensuring all line departments and agencies work together on the government’s top priorities and to implement its national security strategy (or equivalent). This regularity is important: if the NSC fails to meet often, or the Prime Minister frequently skips it, that is a signal to departments that they can probably ignore it.
The National Security Adviser
The NSA has been a positive addition to Whitehall, streamlining several different roles that advised the Prime Minister on defence, foreign and security policy. The incumbent, General Gwyn Jenkins, is very recently appointed. He is the first military officer to hold the role, with his predecessors coming from policy departments, principally the Foreign Office. Jenkins brings military experience to the role when the UK is focused on responding to Russian threats. He is also a former deputy NSA and will be able to configure his deputies to bring expertise in other areas like foreign affairs, security and intelligence.
Given the possibility of a change of government this year, the decision to appoint Jenkins should have been deferred to the other side of the election – as should the selection of his predecessor, Sir Tim Barrow, as the designated next UK Ambassador in Washington, D.C. If Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is elected as the new Prime Minister, he might reasonably want to choose his own NSA. But Starmer should retain General Jenkins in post, at least to ensure smooth running of the machinery during a transition phase.
The choice of a new NSA depends on the skills and experience they require, but also on the kind of role a Prime Minister wants the NSA to perform. The NSA is the Prime Minister’s principal adviser on national security issues, but can perform other key duties, shepherding the NSC process and managing its secretariat. The NSA might also play more public-facing or emissary roles, at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
Rishi Sunak clearly decided that Jenkins had the right blend experience and skills to do the job in the way Sunak wanted. Starmer might have different expectations of the role. Having served different prime ministers, Jenkins will know how to be adaptable. But ultimately, as with other senior positions at the centre of government, the NSA needs the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The key point is that there is no immutably right way for a Prime Minister to use the NSA: quietly effective backroom operator; more prominent, public-facing communicator; or emissary for the Prime Minister in high-level diplomacy. What matters is that expectations are clear and there is a good fit for the role.
The National Security Secretariat
Whoever holds the NSA appointment needs an effective staff. The central secretariat serves the NSC by coordinating across the government. It acts as a focal point for diplomacy, creating symmetry between senior UK officials and foreign counterparts, which smooths the process of coordinating effectively with allies and partners.
After the election, the government should improve the diversity of viewpoints and experience within the Secretariat. The Civil Service already recognises the need to improve the diversity of the national security community. Small-scale initiatives like the ‘shadow NSC’ (comprising junior, fast-streamer officials to provide an alternative perspective on the NSC’s weekly discussion topics) have been welcome, but they can only achieve so much.
The Secretariat should recruit more widely from outside of government. There is a lot of expertise and alternative perspectives in NGOs, think tanks, universities and the private sector. A modest uplift in the percentage of the Secretariat drawn from outside (an achievable aim could be 20% of new recruitment over 5 years) would significantly improve the diversity of viewpoints and expertise contributing to the national security process.
An incoming Prime Minister deserves to be served by an effective national security system, one that draws on a diversity of talent and expertise. The civil service will be able to deliver whatever blueprint a party brings into government. But government would benefit most from continuing the process of opening up this traditionally very closed domain.
Dr Joe Devanny is Lecturer in National Security Studies in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London.