Question
In recent months, our European allies have become increasingly forthright in publicly naming hostile states responsible for attacks on their countries, yet Britain appears reluctant to do the same, even though the Foreign Secretary has spoken very clearly about hybrid war. Over the weekend, it was reported that the crippling cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover was state sponsored. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly attribute such attacks only emboldens our adversaries and, more importantly, will he now name the state believed to be responsible for this unprecedented attack on British industry?
Answer
I will not get into the details of that attack today, but we are absolutely happy to name those who are engaging in information warfare, and I have talked a lot in this session about Russia and what it is doing. The Prime Minister could not have been more eloquent at the UN General Assembly in talking about the more than £1 billion a year that Russia spends on information warfare. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, but I think there is cross-party agreement on this issue. We all want to tackle the information warfare that we face, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House in doing so.22% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (30/100)
The reply only partly answered the question. On whether failing to attribute attacks emboldens adversaries, the minister committed to naming those involved in information warfare, which implies support for attribution, but never directly agreed or disagreed with the claim. On the Jaguar Land Rover attack, the minister declined to discuss the details and gave no reason, and did not name the responsible state, so the question of why it is not being named remains open. Because both parts were answered only in general terms, the person who asked would likely need to ask again for a specific position.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Foreign Secretary agrees that failing to publicly attribute hostile state attacks on Britain emboldens adversaries. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply commits to naming those engaged in information warfare (seq 2), which implicitly favours attribution, but it never directly agrees or disagrees that failing to attribute emboldens adversaries. The £1 billion figure (seq 5) and the cross-party and 'we all want to tackle it' remarks are context rather than an answer to the emboldening claim. |
| Whether the Government will name the state it believes is responsible for the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply declines to discuss the Jaguar Land Rover attack ('I will not get into the details of that attack today') without giving any reason, so the question of why the state is not being named is left unanswered. The general statement about naming those in information warfare (seq 2) does not identify or name the responsible state. |