The furore surrounding the Wikileaks controversy has dominated the headlines over the last few weeks, obscuring a public debate of potentially greater significance to the security industry.

Speaking in front of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee last Wednesday morning, the minister for security suggested that there were ‘a number of options’ in which ‘Cheltenham could supply a service to the private sector.’ While the technology industry could easily debate the virtues (and indeed the practicality) of ‘the commercialisation of GCHQ’, the sentiments behind this statement are entirely positive. It indicates a willingness and appetite at the heart of the security agencies to think creatively about their relationship with UK plc.

In the cyber domain, more than any other, the case for an innovative public-private framework could not be stronger. And while Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones is right to imply that valuable GCHQ intelligence would enhance the private sector’s ability to create robust solutions, government itself would benefit hugely from the vast swathes of threat information that technology companies have at their fingertips. In this sense, rather than selling its services, government should work with industry to establish a facility for two-way information sharing on cyber threats.

The trick for government of course is to be able to present intelligence in an unclassified form that is still of use to technology companies. On the industry side, the challenge lies in overcoming IP and reputational obstacles, as well as finding a way to supply information in congruence with government’s capacity to consume it. As of yet, there are no perfect solutions to these dilemmas. However, what is sure is that with the minister publically committing to ‘develop policies in co-operation with the private-sector’, ironing out these discrepancies will be the product of a groundbreaking partnership.

Technorati Tags: cyber security, defence, security, wikileaks

With the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill scheduled to enter parliament in October, the Coalition Government’s localism agenda looks set to radically transform policing in the UK.

On the face of it, it is difficult to argue with the sentiment of Nick Herbert’s intention to create a ‘fairer, more efficient and more accountable criminal justice system’. However, there is uncertainty that these new proposals will achieve this ambition in practice.

One of the most eye-catching of the Government’s aims is to create locally elected Police and Crime Commissioners on top of the rubble of the abolished Police Authorities. In spite of the Home Office’s claim to the contrary, there is concern that this will pose a challenge to the operational independence of Chief Constables. Elections for the position of Commissioner have the potential to feature unqualified candidates that lack sound policing experience. The election of such a candidate could cause considerable discomfort for senior police officers.

On the other hand, there appears to be an unresolved tension between the rhetoric of local accountability and the Home Office’s reluctance to cede these Commissioners the necessary powers to fulfil their role. Denying Commissioners the freedom to decide over the makeup of their back office functions, and separating this from the responsibility for operational policing, may not be a sustainable business model. For example, it seems entirely possible that a Commissioner elected on a platform of driving efficiency and value for money would demand full control of the levers of power to deliver their manifesto pledges.

Likewise, the ambitions for a consolidated National Crime Agency and the disbanding of the National Policing Improvement Agency need greater explanation. Policing in the 21st Century recognises the critical importance of a number of the NPIA’s functions; however, further clarification is needed on how the migration of these services to other agencies will be carried out.

The Coalition’s consistent emphasis on social action and reducing bureaucracy also features heavily in its policing agenda. However, a reliance on the ‘Big Society’ runs contra to the Government’s concern for accountability, which civil society groups famously lack. There is no doubting that the Home Office has a bold vision for the future of policing, but significant tensions remain that must be ironed out if this vision is to be realised.

Technorati Tags: Nick Herbert, NPIA, police, policing in the 21st century