Dear David thank you for your comment. I think we have the “chicken and the egg” situation here as to what comes first. In my humble opinion our ability to move forward with anything that will work at a whole of county level is predicated on recognising the different cultures and competences that are required. The Civil Service has brilliance at policy development but is not so good at execution nor delivery of the required policy outcomes. So let us start with recognising the different requirements and create an Organisational Design (OD), and all that goes with good OD, to create great capability in both competences – policy and execution. This gets us to the starting point to go onto phase 2. Phase 2 is at the heart of the policy problem that you see today, and the resultant chaos created in policy execution, that is what is it we should do for the good of the Country? How do you make policy decisions when resources (money, people, skills et al) are in short supply? Let me explain: What is more important for the country at large getting citizens to see their GP or free bus passes for pensioners? What is more important breast reduction or enlargement or cancer drugs to prolong someone’s life? What is more important an increase in resources at borders and immigration or foreign aid? Unless you can answer these questions and hundreds more you get policy by ego, guesswork, populism and fantasy – just look at the announcements at recent party conferences, just read your papers today. There is a way to answer such tough questions but I am not convinced political parties want to nail their policy colours to the election mast in such a clear and unambiguous way – I do passionately believe it what the electorate want though. My next blog post will be about how you prioritise such tough questions, and then maybe after that I will review the progress on the ICT strategy implementation. Don’t get me wrong what you say is valid and it has its place but first we must create the Government Infrastructure so that you thoughts can be executed.

Dear John thank you very much for the time and trouble you have taken to post a comment. My first response was “how would John know the truth? Would he be told the reality?” In terms of your statement how interesting I have heard similar statements from other vendors, which was duly ignored. Forgive me for being a little sceptical. You cannot deny that CISCO has been incredibly outspoken about blocking Chinese Tech vendors not just in America but globally; you cannot deny that CISCO gains the most, from business with the American Government and from the Chinese Government - you are deeply imbedded in both. You cannot deny that PRISM has indicated a close relationship between some American Tech vendors and the American Government. Logically one can reason that given CISCO and Juniper’s position in America, their spread of implementations in sensitive Government and enterprise infrastructures around the world questions should be asked about their relationship, If any, with the NSA (or other security agencies) and any other spying programmes that might exist. Quotes such as "The Post (http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/cisco-us-tech-firms-reportedly-urged-congress-to-investigate-huawei-zte-1103864)even found a seven-page sales presentation called "Huawei's & National Security," which is meant to give ammo to Cisco representatives on why clients should avoid Chinese competitors and go with American companies" and your Piranha strategy implies a culture of - we will do anything to stop competition – does anything mean working for the NSA for example in a "you scratch my back, I will scratch yours" kind of way? I accept that you might have a different view on the perception and implications of this pervasive culture and indeed what I, and others, write is far from reality. So just as CISCO and Juniper have been active in questioning political links of non-American tech vendors and raising security fears, you should not be surprised if customers and Governments around the world, in the light of PRISM, now pose questions about American Tech vendors who hold a position where they have the means of contributing to NSA’s strategic arsenal of tools and techniques to exfiltrate data on their targets. CISCO and Juniper have both the means and the motive, however it does not, mean that you have taken the equivalent of the Kings shilling, but it is right for Governments to assess their risks based on this new information and ask is the risk worth it. Let me reiterate my personal view, I believe in open markets, innovations and competition. I do not believe companies or Governments should use cyber security as a trade barrier – we have a global challenge we must collectively address. I look forward to CISCO and Juniper positively promoting and welcoming free trade, innovation and competition in America. I look forward to America opening up its markets as China has done to CISCO and Juniper. There are no winners if other Governments adopt the “American Closed for Competition” model and limit access to their markets. All Governments can copy this and they have more reason to given the recent PRISM revelations.

Dear Mikey thank you for the comment. You are right about the maths, that's why I sourced the figure from another article. I agree with you, based on the numbers more like 24 times. Best wishes John

Thank you for your comments. I was part of the team that hosted the Congressional study in our Headquarters in Shenzhen, as well as meeting the Committee in Hong Kong and one of the authors of answers to the many questions we were asked, and I have to say that our approach was as professional as I have seen throughout my business and Government career - I am sorry you have a different view. Two thirds of our business comes from outside of China and I think many of the Citizens and Governments in the 140 countries in which we operate in may take exception to you suggesting they are 3rd world. I would say that whilst they might not have the GDP of say the USA, in their own way many countries are using technology in very advanced ways. We pride ourselves on our transparency - after all who gets reviewed, audited and inspected as much as Huawei? - we are a private company who are under no legal obligation to publish information yet because we are a leader in transparency we have had our accounts audited by a world-class audit firm, KPMG for 8 years, we publish our accounts and a full range of other information. I note your point on “association" with the Chinese Government, yet there has never been any report that has identified any evidence of association with the Chinese Government other than that required under law for purposes of company formation and taxes etc - just like any company in the world. From my perspective I can honestly say that I have never had any of my cyber security work reviewed, modified, influenced by anyone other than colleagues in Huawei and our customers. Finally we fully support your point about third-party validation of our products – this is what we do, it was such a shame that the Committee did not agree with you or I on validation. If you are American perhaps you could lobby your Congressmen to introduce a bill that ALL technology should be subject to independent review. After all other Governments carry the same risk of using equipment not produced in their country. It is right for non-American companies and Governments to question what might lurk in American technology just as it is right for the American Government to question what might lurk in non-American technology. As I put in my recent White Paper one doesn’t need to look too hard for links between say the American Security Agencies and American technology companies, nor for conspiracy theories about known flaws being left open so that a Government can exploit them. This is why we favour and demonstrate openness, transparency and collaboration and do not wish to see cyber security being used as a protectionist measure – I hope you favour this approach as well. Once again thank you for your comment.

Philippa thank you for your posting. We have left the decision on whether departments should submit an exception request to the discretion of every department. Given that you are working to March 2013 I wonder if the department is taking a view that this decision does not need to be taken in advance of the completion of the spending review. If you believe that a decision needs to be taken question you should escalate your concerns to your manager/ SRO of the project. Best wishes John