Ukrainian Refugees

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I think it is this side.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Lotteries Regulation

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I think I said that we need an evidence base to change legislation for the National Lottery, as it has been such a conspicuous success. The noble Lord implies that it is not the right thing to do. Technological changes to the way that people can play the lottery now are a concern, but in going out to consultation we are not presupposing the rights and wrongs. We are saying that if we are going to change what has been a very successful institution, we need evidence, and we want to ask people what they think about it.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Talking of evidence, do we have any evidence about what strata of society, in terms of income, tend to buy most lottery tickets? Is it the less affluent or the more affluent, and is there any evidence as to how that is split?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I should have said to the previous noble Lord that I do not have the figures for the percentage of lottery sales made to 16 to 18-year olds, but I will write to him. Speaking very generally, there is evidence that the less affluent sections of society spend disproportionately more on the National Lottery.

Internet Encryption

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

It is not possible to do so very briefly. It means that, when you send a request to a server and you have to work out which server you are going to by finding out the IP address, the message is encrypted so that the intervening servers are not able to look at what is in the message. It encrypts the message that is sent to the servers. What that means is that, whereas previously every server along the route could see what was in the message, now only the browser will have the ability to look at it, and that will put more power in the hands of the browsers.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I thought I understood this subject until the Minister explained it a minute ago. This is a very serious issue. I was unclear from his answer: is this going to be addressed in the White Paper? Will the new officer who is being appointed have the ability to look at this issue when the White Paper comes out?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

It is not something that the White Paper per se can look at, because it is not within the purview of the Government. The protocol is designed by the IETF, which is not a government body; it is a standards body, so to that extent it is not possible. Obviously, however, when it comes to regulating and the powers that the regulator can use, the White Paper is consulting precisely on those matters, which include DNS blocking, so it can be considered in the consultation.

Huawei

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Thursday 25th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I assure the House that I do not feel certain about many things. But seriously, my noble friend has a point. However, one should not be led into a false sense of reassurance by saying we should ban one particular company. There are really only about three main suppliers of this 5G equipment: Nokia, Ericsson and Huawei. Both Nokia and Ericsson either have their components assembled in or buy components from China. We must be very careful about trying to give a false sense of reassurance by banning just one company or another.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I apologise for leaping in earlier; it is not like Radio 4. It is an absolute disgrace that things discussed at the National Security Council are leaked. I hope the Minister can tell us exactly what is to be done about this and how it will be looked into. It is really disgraceful.

On the work that is going on, does the Minister not agree that it is really important to complete that full survey? This is such a complex subject. Many of the firms referred to have exactly the same sort of problems as Huawei does. We have used Huawei since 2009. We know there are risks. We must never forget that China is a very real risk—let us face it: it has, on an industrial scale, stolen IP from us—but that does not mean that we cannot use its equipment in certain ways, as long as our experts are able to modify that risk.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that any leak from the National Security Council is a disgrace. Obviously it should not happen. On what is happening about that, I am not able to comment—and he would not expect me to—on any particular inquiry or investigation, but I can say that the Prime Minister takes leaks from the Government very seriously, particularly when they are to do with security. I will leave it at that.

As far as Huawei in particular is concerned, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. We must mitigate the risks where we can. We have an extensive oversight programme for Huawei—more extensive than for any other company. We have to face up to the fact that the risks come from not just the hardware but the software, and 5G in particular will mean that upgrades to software will be going through the networks the whole time. That is one of the areas we have to concentrate on and it does not come from a particular supplier of hardware.

Online Harms

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Monday 8th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the television regulator and other media regulators have done a good job and that they are a good example. However, I will not be watching that programme, because I have an enormous amount of work today. If she promises not to ask any questions about the statutory instrument tomorrow, I might have a bit more time. But seriously, that shows that the decisions we are asking regulators to make are not easy. We are not trying to censor the internet. We want a vibrant internet which allows discussion, debate and different points of view but which does not allow some of the worst harms, which are indescribably bad. We need to deal with those, and we want to make the areas which are regulated offline also regulated online, in a reasonable and proportionate way.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, we must not delude ourselves; despite everything the major internet giants and the social media platforms say about how they are trying to advance the cause of humankind and make things better for us, they are there to make profit—to make money. In the same way as when you are dealing with a chap and you grab him by a certain part of his anatomy, his mind follows, if you grab their money, their minds will follow. Anything we do about punishing must focus on the money side, because that will grab their attention.

When we talked about the international side of things some years ago, we were concerned about countries such as China and Russia, which immediately said, “Oh yes, this sort of control is a wonderful thing”, and we had to be careful to get ourselves unwound from that. Have we had any international discussions at all yet about what we are proposing in this White Paper?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree with the noble Lord about money, although it is not only about money; individual liability is also important. If senior executives of companies are held personally responsible, that has a significant effect, as do criminal charges against companies. However, those things are part of the consultation.

On Russia and China, and countries that do not share our views about the open internet, obviously we have to take that into account, which is why, for example, there is a lot of discussion about disinformation and how companies will be expected to look out for that and deal with it by using technology and in many other ways.

Lastly, I am not aware of the detail of the international discussions, but no other country has taken this approach. For example, we have talked about individual measures that different countries have taken: Australia has set up a new safety commissioner, who is like an ombudsman, but again, that is reactive rather than proactive, and Germany has set up a law which insists that companies must take down material, but again, that is reactive. We have talked to countries about individual bits of legislation, but no one anywhere has taken a holistic and proactive approach to internet regulation. We certainly expect that if this goes through, is a success and works well, other countries will be interested, and we will certainly be prepared to talk to them about it.

Mobile Networks: Resilience

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not able to give that assurance as I do not know what bases the emergency services use. If, for example, they were entirely dependent on O2 they would not have back-up. I am not aware whether that is the case but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that subject.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat used to produce a pamphlet which covered all the resilience issues, including communications, power and pandemics. Now that is included as part of the national risk register, so that when you look it up on the web you can draw down things. Is there any plan to produce that very useful booklet again, which went to every single household and gave advice on how to confront these various resilience issues?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not sure of the answer to that. Critical national infrastructure is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office and I will certainly ask those there and write to the noble Lord.

Pornographic Websites: Age Verification

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Monday 5th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

One of the reasons this has taken so long is that it is complicated. We in the DCMS, and many others, not least in this House, have spent a long time discussing the best way of achieving this. I am not immediately familiar with exactly what section 6 says, but when the statutory instrument comes before this House—it is an affirmative one to be discussed—I will have the answer ready for the noble Earl.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the possession of a biometric card by the population would make the implementation of things such as this very much easier?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

In some ways it would, but there are problems with people who either do not want to or cannot have biometric cards.

Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

One example that I think I have already mentioned is data trusts. The review made the point that big companies have not a monopoly, but the advantage of having so much data. SMEs and small companies need access to that data in order to grow. That is the whole point of AI. If we can get a mechanism that allows big and small companies to work together on datasets to retain the value and to get some use of it, it would be a great advantage. We are committed to having pilots on data trusts in place by the end of this year.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the Statement. My question relates to a narrow field: the issue of fully autonomous weapons systems which are using AI and learn as they go on. What is the Government’s position on the development of fully autonomous weapons systems, bearing in mind that we know that at least two countries are working on what I think is an extremely dangerous thing?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The development of weapons generally is a very dangerous thing. We consider that the existing provisions of international humanitarian law are sufficient to regulate the use of weapons systems which might be developed in the future as they have been flexible enough in the past to cope with the invention of new means of warfare such as submarines and aeroplanes, but we are obliged to determine whether new weapons or means comply with international law. We will continue to engage with the UN on this point. We bear it in mind; we understand the implications of it, and we will remain within international law as it stands.

Undersea Cables

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That is a good point. It is not just transatlantic cables that are important here; the Policy Exchange report gives examples of other areas in the world where cables have broken. I am not going to say exactly what the mitigation measures are but that is what the national risk assessment is for, and the National Security Council looks at that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that we first became very concerned about our cables in the 1970s; indeed, we built HMS “Challenger” at great cost to work on these cables and look at where there had been attacks and what had been done. We got rid of her when the Cold War stopped. The Russians have now started investing very heavily in nuclear submarines that can go deep and carry out attacks on these cables. At the end of the Cold War we had probably the best antisubmarine warfare and undersea warfare capability in the world, but that has slowly been eroded. What are we planning to do to look at the cables that are in deep water? The Type 26 programme is late and slow, with only a small number of ships coming, while the MPAs are still not with us. What are we doing to have ships and platforms that will enable us to go and check these lines, repair them and do the necessary work?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

As far as repairing them is concerned, the individual companies are responsible for that. The noble Lord asked roughly the same question in December last year, and my noble friend said that, although he could not go into details about the UK’s antisubmarine capability, any threat to the UK infrastructure is taken extremely seriously. Nowadays it is not just submarines, of course; any so-called civilian vessel that can have drones on board can do the same. The main defence is resilience and lots of different cables, because there are just over half a million miles of cable to monitor in the world.

Gaming Machines

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I had not considered that issue, I must admit, but I do not think it is for me to comment.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, talking of gaming machines and games of chance, Lady Emma Hamilton enjoyed games of chance and 224 years ago yesterday she met Nelson—an affair of the heart. On Nelson’s heart was engraved “lack of frigates”. He had some 284 of them. Today, the Government are committed to maintaining only 19 escorts. Does the Minister think we should have a somewhat better aspiration, or it may be engraved on all our hearts?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am afraid I had not thought about that.

BBC: Royal Charter

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that is of crucial importance. We have not seen the draft charter framework agreement yet, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be happy when that happens. I agree that that is an important matter for the BBC to consider, but I would also say that we are very concerned not to get involved with the editorial independence of the BBC.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the DIS, the MoD, the FCO, the JIC and the NCA are all happy with the plans for BBC monitoring?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I do not know all those acronyms, but I am sure that they will be reassured when the charter is published.

Iraqi Troops: Training

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Thursday 21st April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, before I answer my noble friend, as this is a Ministry of Defence Question, I think that it would be appropriate to express the Armed Forces’ appreciation to Her Majesty on her birthday for her deep knowledge of, interest in and support to her Armed Forces.

I am pleased to report that the campaign against Daesh in Iraq is making progress. With coalition support, Iraqi security forces have taken around 40% of the populated areas that Daesh once held in Iraq, including Tikrit, Sinjar and Ramadi, and Hit is now being cleared of Daesh remnants. We have also been striking elsewhere in northern Iraq, predominantly on Daesh’s lines of communication, to support the Iraqi forces preparing for the retaking of Mosul. We will continue to provide vital air support and specialist training and equipment, as I mentioned.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that the coalition will defeat Daesh militarily in Iraq—but what then? To defeat and destroy Daesh we have to get to its heartland, which is in Syria. Does the Minister agree that, to do that, we will have to talk to the loathsome Assad and deal with the Syrian army? That is the truth on the ground and we will not defeat Daesh militarily overall unless we do that.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the point that this crosses borders— Daesh does not recognise conventional borders. One problem of course is that when we do defeat it militarily, foreign fighters in particular move to other countries. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to consider what we do in other countries including Syria, and, during the transition, dealing with people we may not wish to deal with. However, defeating Daesh militarily is not the only answer. The coalition has five lines of effort, not only for military support but dealing with foreign fighters, Daesh financing and funding, humanitarian stabilisation work and exposing the true nature of Daesh.

Banks: Internet Banking

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I will write to the noble Lord to be absolutely specific about that, but fraud is fraud, whether it takes place on the internet or any other way, and banks are required to obey the law for internet fraud as any other.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

In support of my noble friend Lord Reid, this problem is getting exponentially worse. Is it not right to say that banking and the money markets are effectively part of our critical national infrastructure? As was just said, although we are now encouraging people to report attacks on their systems, there have been some huge attacks—for example, on the New York Stock Exchange—where victims have refused to comment on it because they are scared of denting investor confidence. It is crucial that these things are reported so that we can learn lessons and move forward.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not sure the noble Lord is correct that the problem is getting exponentially worse. However, I accept that the threat is evolving and changing all the time, and we certainly cannot be complacent. The Government have set up the Computer Emergency Response Team to co-ordinate responses to cybersecurity incidents that threaten critical national infrastructure, and it is certainly the case that the regulators require all firms to report any cyber-related or operation-related incidents in their IT systems to the regulator.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord West of Spithead and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

I thank the Minister for his response. Before I come to that—because I was a little disappointed—I will say that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is absolutely right. We have to be quite careful about how we go about this. Indeed, I have got no praise for the way I have put my amendments, but I believe that this needs to be looked at. The Minister makes the assumption that we are happy with current legislation, but current legislation is not adequate. Certainly the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline pilots association do not think it is. We need to think hard about this. Overall, the noble Lord was on side with my worries, but—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Again, I am sure that the cross-government group that is considering gaps in legislation will take account of this debate, including the noble Lord’s comments.

[Lord West of Spithead]

I thank the noble Lord for that. At the moment, some of these things are slightly opaque. That is the problem. It is very difficult to find out what is going on. It would be much better if we had a clearer view with a more open debate about it. It is interesting, for example, that the Military Aviation Authority has just published RA 1600, which is a reclassification of some drones and it is paving the way for much greater use of military drones in UK airspace. So when we have a lot of military drones operating there, again, the risk of these other drones becomes even greater. This is something we have to get our mind around.

Interestingly—I had not thought about this before—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned tracking mechanisms, which of course are making huge leaps and bounds in technology. You can get ones that are really tiny. Maybe that would be a way, if the drones showed up on secondary radar, for example. I do not know whether that has been looked at—and the reason that I do not know whether it has been looked at is that there is no openness in terms of discussion, which worries me.

I will need to reconsider the Minister’s comments and think about them and look at Hansard. Until I have done that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.