Question
The Minister will know how much I want the Government’s Be Ready campaign to succeed—I have shared my views with him at length—because the threats are real and increasing. But if the Government are going to ask people to stock up on tinned food and wind-up radios, they must be honest when we are attacked. The shadow Minister raised the case of Jaguar Land Rover, and the fact that the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said at the weekend that the incident was state sponsored. That is incredibly serious, so can the Minister use this opportunity to tell the House which state was responsible?
Answer
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I am not going to use the occasion of talking about Be Ready to get into matters relating to cyber attribution, not least because those are complicated processes that need to be done in a certain way, as I know he understands. The House will be well-versed in the challenges that Jaguar Land Rover faced last year. There is a lot of work across Government to ensure that there is resilience among both the public and private sector organisations in the United Kingdom. I will have more to say about that with the launch of the national cyber action plan, which is coming later this year.
Verdict: AMBER (30/100)
The reply addresses the one question asked, but only in a limited way. The minister declines to discuss who was behind the cyber attack and gives a brief reason, that attribution is a complicated process that has to be done in a particular way, without naming any state or giving any concrete facts. A member of the public would likely need to ask again for specifics, so this is a hedged refusal rather than a direct answer.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state the Government holds responsible for the Jaguar Land Rover incident, which the former Armed Forces Minister described as state sponsored. | Addressed | Hedged | The minister explicitly declines to discuss cyber attribution (seq 2) and gives a stated, if brief, reason that attribution is a complicated process that must be done in a certain way (seq 3), which answers the item as a refusal with a reason, though no state is named and no concrete fact is given. |