In this episode Rob and Stan look at various cybersecurity risks in the critical infrastructure sectors - and how to mitigate against them It has been inspired by a series of blog posts  written by Stan that focus on:
Healthcare and public health
Energy
Financial services
Critical manufacturing

"Some of the threats are common among the different sectors. Certainly these  large scale kind of ransomware attacks is impacting healthcare. Bu it's also impacting the manufacturing sector. You know, 13% of all ransomware attacks last year were attributed to those in the manufacturing sector. Because if your production line’s down you're motivated to pay. And ransomware attackers know that."

" think the reality is we can no longer assume that we have a landscape where people will play nice.  For example what's going on between Ukraine and Russia, where cyber is being used as one of the elements of war. And if we are in a conflict in the future, our adversary is most likely going to be leveraging cyber and will look for weaknesses in our infrastructure.  We've got to change the priority and the voluntary approach doesn't seem to work. So whether it be through carrot or stick we need to  motivate each of these operators to raise their game. Because time's running out."

EXTRA! Cybersecurity in the critical infrastructure sectors

Iron fiscal rules that allow borrowing only for investment might seem like a sensible strategy, but the figures have repeatedly been fiddled to make the UK appear fiscally responsible. Both main political parties have been playing this game for forty years. From Thatcher onwards, Conservatives used privatisation and PFIs (private finance initiatives) to move debt off the public books to the private sector. Gordon Brown opted for the PPP (public–private partnership) model for the London Underground, and perfected the art by re-categorising some public spending (e.g. on health and education) as “investment” in order to meet the requirement to borrow only to invest.

 

The current approach, however, is much more serious. Governments are now borrowing to maintain our assets, calling this “investment”, as are the utilities. Fixing the school roofs and the hospital buildings, and, for the utilities, the sewers, the potholes, the sad state of the railway infrastructures, patching up the electricity networks, and maintaining the natural environment, should be current expenditure, not treated as new investments. We are borrowing from the next generation to pay for the current maintenance. Capital maintenance should be a current expenditure not a capital one.

 

Sustainable public finance would (with a few exceptions) require debt to only ever be for investment that genuinely enhances assets and creates new ones, such that the next generation receives better assets. When it comes to the environment, we need to pass it on in a good state, not to simply say we will continue to borrow and live beyond our means. Government needs to explain honestly and openly how it will balance the books. Pretending that our fiscal rules are held with an iron fist whilst actually including the capital maintenance is bad accounting. The numbers are huge. The next debt crisis will follow as the unsustainable is not sustained.

Fiddling the figures – iron fiscal rules are not what they seem

Helm Talks is full of short, 'pull no punches' insights into:
Energy & Climate; 
Regulation, Utilities & Infrastructure; 
Natural Capital & the Environment.

Professor Dieter Helm is Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford.

Fiddling the figures – iron fiscal rules are not what they seem

Helm Talks - energy climate infrastructure & more

Related tracks