Grant Shapps says it will ‘take some time’ to conclude who was to blame for cyber-attack on armed forces payroll – as it happened

• Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, has said that “state involvement” in the large-scale cyber attack on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) cannot be ruled out – but without confirming reports that China was responsible.

• Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has accused Labour of trying to win the election by frightening pensioners with “fake news” about the government having a secret plan to raise income tax by 8p in the pound. (See 3.42pm.)

• Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has tried to counter arguments that Labour is not offering proper change at the election by arguing “stability is change”. Under the Tories, the country would face “five more years of chaos”, she said in a speech. (See 9.01am and 12.10pm.)

• John Swinney has been elected by MSPs as Scotland’s new first minister.

• University bosses are to attend a Downing Street summit to discuss antisemitism on campuses, as Palestinian solidarity protests continue to escalate at UK universities, with 10 students now vowing to go on hunger strike.

View image in fullscreen

Tobias Ellwood (Con) said that, if this was a physical attack, MPs would be demanding a proportionate reponse, and Nato’s article 5 might even be involved. What would be a proportionate response in this case?

Shapps repeated the point about the government not being sure a state was involved. And he said data did not appear to have been stolen.

But he accepted that Ellwood was right in his general point, about the need not to ignore state involvement in attacks of this kind.

Mark Francois (Con) said that, although the government has been briefing that China was to blame, Shapps was not willing to say so publicly because he was leant on by the Foreign Office. He said the UK should stand up to China as the China stood up to the UK.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader and one of the most critical of China (he has been sanctioned by the regime as a result) said that, on the basis of what happened after previous Chinese hacks, it might take two years for the government to declare China responsible. He says the government should put China in the enhanced sphere under the National Security Act 2023. That would mean groups or individuals acting on behalf of China in the UK being subject to tighter controls.

Shapps said that, if he were to commit to that now, he would be pre-judging the results of the inquiry into this incident.

Alicia Kearns (Con), the chair of the foreign affairs committee, asserted that China was responsible for the attack. Pointing out that the government has already blamed China for a cyber-attack on the Electoral Commission, and for trying to obtain information from MPs, she said it was time for the government to recognise that China is acting like an enemy.

Shapps said that in relation to this incident “it is not the case … that there is a proven connection” to China. He went on:

Although we can see a malign actor is involved, we have yet to make the full connection to a state – although I can’t rule that out. But that might be the conclusion. We have no evidence to conclude that way yet.

Jeremy Quin (Con), chair of the defence committee, asked when the “malign actor” would be named.

Shapps said “if indeed there is a state sponsored actor” involved, there was a process involved for identifying them. He said it would “take some time” to reach conclusions.

Shapps told Healey the leak of the news last night was unwelcome. The government was due to announce the news today, he says.

He said the MoD did not think the data has been stolen. But it was making the assumption that it had been, so the appropriate security measures were put in place by people affected, he said.

He confirmed that Healey was right to say SSCL was the contractor involved.

He did not address Healey’s question about China.

UPDATE: This is from Sky’s Sam Coates, who broke the story last night.

After Labour’s John Healey names Shared Services Connected Ltd - SSCL - as the contractor involved in the MoD hack, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps confirms it

SSCL says “SSCL plays a central role in delivering the MOD’s vision to transform core payroll, HR and pension services for 230,000 military personal and reservists and 2 million veterans”

John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, condemned the cyber-attack and asked Shapps to explain why news of it had been leaked to the media first.

He said the MoD seemed to be getting worse at avoiding data breaches. They had gone up in number three-fold over the past five years, he said.

And he asked Shapps to comment on claims China was to blame.

Shapps ended by apologising to members of the armed forces affected by the cyber-attack.

He said it should not have happened, and that his plan would ensure it did not happen again.

Shapps says he cannot give any further details of the malign actor behind this.

But he says the government “can’t rule out foreign state involvement”.

(This is more equivocal than what Shapps’s cabinet colleage, Mel Stride, said this morning. Stride said "some kind of state actor” did seem to be responsible. See 9.49am.)

Shapps say the system holds personal details of regular and reserve personnel, and of some recently retired veterans. This includes names and bank details, and in some cases addresses, he says.

He says there is no evidence that data has been removed. But he says the MoD is putting in place an eight-point plan to respond.

People are being notified, and given information on data security. He says a phoneline has been set up.

Service personnel are being given access to a commercial personal data protection service.

Changes to the system will be made before payments start again, he says.

Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, is making his statement to MPs about the MoD cyber-attack.

He says a “malign actor” gained access to part of armed forces’ payment network. He went on:

This is an external system completely separate to the core network, and it’s not connected to the main military system. The house will wish to know that it is operated by a contractor and there is evidence of potential failings by them, which may have made it easier for the malign actor to gain entry.

This is being reviewed, he says.

Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, was told the goverment would be turning a blind eye to the “slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians” if it continued armed sales to Israel.

The comment was made by the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara, during a Commons urgent question on Gaza.

O’Hara asked if the Israeli attack on Rafah was the breach of international humanitarian law that Mitchell said last week would lead to arms sales being suspended. He went on:

Or is this yet another example of the UK declaring a red line only for Israel to completely ignore it without condemnation or consequence?

Because, minister, we know how this plays out. You plead with them, they ignore you, they do what they want, and you find excuses for them and so a blind eye will be turned to the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

And while the UK government calls for more aid to the survivors, it will continue to issue arms export licences. This has been the pattern of behaviour for seven months. Can we expect anything different?

Mitchell said that the government’s position on arms sales had not changed.

But he also said the government was deeply concerned about the situation in Rafah.

We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military incursion, given the number of civilians that are sheltering there and the importance of that entry point for aid.

Entry points for humanitarian aid, including Kerem Shalom, must be reopened quickly to allow aid in. Israel must facilitate immediate uninterrupted humanitarian access in the south, especially the entry of fuel and ensure protection of civilians and safe passage for those who wish to leave Rafah. As yet we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians.

A reader asks:

What has happened to the Lib Dem’s No Confidence motion in today’s HOC business?

The Lib Dems said they were tabling a no confidence motion.

What they did not say is that this is an almost completely pointless gesture because they don’t get to decide what motions will be debated by MPs, and this motion has no more chance of being debated than any of the other motions on the early day motion list.

It would be different if the official opposition tabled a no confidence motion. By convention, they do have to be debated. But Labour is the official opposition.

The Liberal Democrats cannot even be sure of using an opposition day debate to get this debated. There are 20 days set aside per session for opposition day debates, but Labour chooses the motion on 17 of those days, and the other three days are allocated to the third largest party in the Commons, the SNP. In theory the SNP is supposed to share that time with other, smaller parties, but the Lib Dems are not guaranteed anything.

John Swinney accepted his nomination as first minister with some remarks that struck a personal and collegiate tone.

First he reminded the chamber that his wife Elizabeth lives with multiple sclerosis.

She is indefatigable in trying to make sure that MS does not get in the way of her living life to the full, but, much to her frustration, she does often have to rely on her husband for support and assistance.

He thanks her for “the sacrifices she is prepared to make to enable her husband to serve our country as first minster.”

Elsewhere, Swinney took responsibility for his own part in the polarisation of the parliament - his cross-chamber heckles are legendary and he has been rebuked for them by the presiding officer on occasion.

He promised the chamber “that will all stop - I have changed” to laughter from colleagues, though the point is a serious one.

During Treasury questions this afternoon Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, also accused his Labour shadow, Rachel Reeves, of implying in her speech this morning that reducing inflation was not a “big deal”. (See 9.01am.)

Hunt said:

The biggest single thing we can do to help with cost of living pressures is to bring down inflation. And that seems to be something that escaped the shadow chancellor this morning when she said it wasn’t a big deal to get inflation down to its target.

It’s a very, very big deal for families facing a cost of living crisis, and she needs to know that inflation falls by design and not by accident.

Reeves did not quite put it like that in her speech. Her argument was that people did not feel better off, partly because “this is forecast to be the first parliament on record with living standards actually lower at its end than at the start”.

John Swinney, the new Scottish first minister, paid tribute to his predecessor in his speech to MSPs this afternoon. Swinney said:

I’m proud that it was an SNP government that was led by the first woman first minister and then by the first Muslim first minister.

I want to pay tribute to Humza Yousaf – a man of unfailing courtesy who served my party but also this parliament and country with distinction.

Swinney urged MSPs to recognise that “despite our political differences, we’re all here because we want the best for Scotland, whatever our specific role happens to be”. And he promised to listen not just to people who voted for pro-independence parties, but also to people who didn’t.

View image in fullscreen