Cybersecurity: Encryption

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Shields

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shields]

My Lords, the events of the past week demonstrate the importance of robust cybersecurity plans and encryption to protect our citizens and our national infrastructure. As Minister Vaizey said yesterday in the other place, the Government—and, indeed, the previous coalition Government—have worked to ensure that companies have the tools they need to protect themselves against cyberattack. We have invested £860 million in a five-year national cybersecurity programme and set up the National Cyber Crime Unit inside the National Crime Agency. Our Cyber Essentials scheme sets out basic controls for all organisations, including the national grid, which they must have in place to protect against cyberattacks.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome much of what the Minister has said. Can she absolutely confirm that there is no intention in forthcoming legislation either to weaken encryption or provide back doors to it?

[Baroness Shields]

I can confirm that there is no intention to do that; that is correct.

Graham Ovenden: Art Collection

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Shields

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shields]

The Government will definitely place a list of the art to be destroyed by this judgment in the Library as soon as possible. Sexually explicit art and its creation by artists in this country are not put at risk by this judgment. The judge in this case took into account the fact that this private collection features sexually abusive images, which in England and Wales it is a criminal offence to possess.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said, but as a matter of principle is it not surprising that a district judge can make absolute moral and aesthetic judgments of this kind involving the destruction of artworks, some of which are more than 100 years old? Is not a much better solution to this to limit display rather than to destroy these works of art? Are we not confusing the artist with the art involved?

[Baroness Shields]

My Lords, this case relates to the artist’s private collection. The trustees of the Tate decided no longer to display this art because some of the victims could have been part of the art display, so crime scenes would have been on display in the Tate. There is a statement about that. This case relates to the individual collection. The only person who can appeal is the convicted criminal.