defence & cyber security roundtable 33


built in. With UK technology you won’t have that problem."


“We have everything in place to grow a significant industry, and that could be a huge export bonus to the economy.”


James referred to Pudwell’s mention of Reading, Warwick and Cranfield Universities as having excellent cyber research resources. “In particular, Oxford is opening a Cyber Security Centre at the Department of Computer Science on March 26.” This presents an excellent opportunity to develop and position the UK as a pre-eminent expert and exporter of cyber risk products.


Piper added that Lloyds of London was also capable of great solutions in terms of innovative insurance responses to emerging risks.


Hope: “In terms of investing in industry, Prolink are sponsoring the cyber security labs at Coventry University and advising on appropriate course content to ensure that the next wave of graduates becoming cyber security professionals have real-world knowledge.”


Eryl Smith: “Our Government recognises that it hasn’t got the resources and budget, the capability to do this on its own. It needs to prioritise and draw heavily on industry to support it. It is an area where the UK has a burgeoning creative and innovative base, if it can be encouraged and fostered.”


Is foreign ownership a national concern?


Peddie raised the concern that many large companies and infrastructure entities now have private foreign owners.


“The utility sector for example is largely in corporate hands, much of it overseas owned. It’s their responsibility to have their security properly managed. Think about the Armageddon scenario if someone managed to shut down the National Grid. How much of a role is there really for UK government in the protection of our critical national


infrastructure security if the ownership lies with the corporate sector?”


McKenzie noted that while such infrastructure threats were very much part of the Tier One security agenda, UK government expenditure for cyber protection (£650m) is minimal compared with the larger Defence budget.


Pudwell: “That should scare us because the US is spending huge sums on researching such infrastructure risks.”


Piper: “One of the troubles is that the Government has other things to do. They are trying to save the economy, for example. We need someone or some body championing this topic.”


McKenzie pointed out that a significant cyber breach could affect the overall economy.


Rustam Roy


global markets for the UK’s defence and security requirements. So, how can our Thames Valley companies be best placed in that competitive environment to maximise their opportunities?”


He suggested local companies might secure more work if they concentrate on innovation which provides the ‘technology advantage’ – critically ensuring that the UK stays one-step ahead of the cyber enemy. Or, by focusing on “aspects of security which are of sovereign national interest. In those circumstances perhaps the Government will not be in a position to incline so much to global openness in procurement".


Jonathan Durrant


Eryl Smith said the Cabinet Office (responsible for cyber security) was galvanized by the topic but: “Somebody needs to force the pace. At one end of the spectrum the MOD has some very clear security needs, and CPNI is promoting what is required at the other end. We are not going to turn the clock back on foreign ownership of infrastructure, so the role of government, through CPNI, is to co-ordinate knowledge and understanding.”


Information sharing at the highest levels was happening Smith agreed but: “Industry in general is still struggling to understand what is going on because much of the information on cyber threats is classified. We need to get a greater degree of two-way sharing of information so that business has a greater awareness of the threats and does more to protect itself.”


Procuring work of national importance


David Murray


Durrant “The National Security through Technology White Paper confirms the government’s stated principle of adopting ‘open procurement’ in domestic and


THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE – THAMES VALLEY – APRIL 2012


Pudwell suggested the Government should offer smaller procurement opportunities. “The bigger you make the procurement deal, the more you wonder if you can risk going with a smaller provider. So, the purchasers tend to go with a massive well-known player.” The bigger the deal, the longer was the protracted tendering process, he added.


“If they change to smaller pilot deals (around £50,000 - £100,000), as other countries are doing, they can take the chance of going with a smaller company and getting better, more innovative solutions. That’s why the IT industry consolidates so quickly, because it’s far easier to buy innovation than develop it yourself through R&D. A lot of the cleverest people go to small businesses because they want to have a say, and make a difference.”


Peddie: “The Government is talking the talk, but not yet walking the walk.”


Pudwell: “If the Government buys from a company, that validates it.”


Eryl Smith: “The White Paper clearly creates an expectation that there will be more opportunities for SMEs, but we have a long way to go to change the process, frameworks and the cultures that will allow that to happen.


“I don’t now how they are going to get round the conundrum of wanting to be seen supporting UK


industry without falling foul of the current procurement constraints.”


Peddie felt the Bombardier train procurement example might have woken up the Government to be smarter when matters are in the national interest.


How do you support SMEs getting into the procurement supply chain in critical areas? asked Murray.


Do more smaller projects and break down the larger projects so that they don’t come under EU procurement legislation, was one suggestion.


Eryl Smith suggested innovative ways of providing more physical resources and access at a lower cost to SMEs. He exampled the University of Oxford Cyber Security Centre, the opportunity to create new cyber security clusters and the need for more tax and regulatory incentives to encourage their success.


“Faced with some of the hurdles that they have to jump at the moment is it any wonder that SMEs can’t justify taking on the overheads of a major involvement.”


Pudwell said BA Systems Investment in Innovations (i3) programme was “a superb example of how this can be done. They put development funding, but not equity, into innovative organisations. In fact ourselves (Assuria) and Overtis are recipients. We would never have got near the highly classified government projects that we are now involved in, if we had not been providing technology to a Tier One player who then provides the solution. But the great thing is that we can now say our technology is used in that important space".


McKenzie: “It’s important SMEs, particularly R&D companies, retain independence, as they are more able to adjust their business strategy to suit the needs of larger companies in a fast-changing technology environment.”


Williams of Overtis agreed: “Being part of BA’s I3 programme is going to help us to engage in opportunities that we would not otherwise get a sniff at, and frankly it puts us on other people’s radar.”


www.businessmag.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52