The national security effort focuses too heavily on terrorism at the expense of fighting organised crime, securing energy supplies and tackling other international threats, a report states today.

The document by the think-tank Demos gives warning that the country’s security apparatus is bogged down in turf wars, obsessive secrecy and outdated notions of the nation state. National Security for the Twenty-first Century, the result of 12 months of research funded in part by the Cabinet Office, recommends the creation of a National Security Secretariat. The report has been circulated in Whitehall at senior levels ahead of publication.Opinion polls by Demos revealed that while ministers seemed fixated on terrorism the public was more worried about violent crime and immigration. It calls for “a fundamental review” of the structure of national security.

“The British Government lacks a clear and coherent view of the nature and priority of risks to the United Kingdom,” the report states. “The national security architecture is flawed in its design. The Government remains structured around functions and services with separate budgets for defence, foreign affairs, intelligence and development. Whitehall departments, intelligence agencies and the police forces that make up the security architecture have changed very little in the past two decades, despite the end of the Cold War and the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001.

“The unifying threat of nuclear war has been replaced by a plethora of security challenges such as trafficking and organised crime, international terrorism, energy security, pandemics and illegal immigration. They are dangers that are present but not clear.” The idea of national security had to encompass dangers such as the vulnerability of gas supplies and scarcity of oil.

Ministers felt pressure to be seen to do something. There had been 53 Acts of Parliament in a decade dealing with terrorism and crime. In the 100 years up to 1997 there had been 43. But the report states: “There is growing concern that the Government is becoming too focused on international terrorism to the detriment of other threats and hazards to the UK.” The way out of this reactive approach is said to be a fundamental overhaul of institutions, creating a National Security Secretariat with control and influence across government.

The report says: “This would be seen as a threat to the power of individual departments. But the reasons for change are clear. The Government can no longer muddle through on defence and foreign affairs, organised crime and counter-terrorism.” Demos points to Cobra, the emergency briefing room, as the one example of the Government’s branches combining successfully. If Cobra works, so too could a “robust, influential” secretariat. It would establish structures and policies to deal with key priorities defined by the Prime Minister, develop a picture of current and future threats and manage the £48 billion security budget. The culture of secrecy on security issues had to be eliminated. “Departments and agencies have got to shift from communicating to the public to engaging with them.”

National security agencies should be held to account more rigorously. The report says that the Intelligence and Security Committee is inadequate and that the Serious Organised Crime Agency appears to be subject to no scrutiny at all.

Talking the talk

— Tectonic stresses Factors of change that can create security problems, such as population, energy, environment, climate change and economy

— Wicked problems Unbounded in scope, time and resources with no agreement on a solution

— List X Secret list of companies approved to hold classified government information

— Intellipedia Interactive American intelligence database open to wide range of agencies

— Need to share Opposite of “need to know”; the collaboration and dissemination of material

Source: Demos

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth