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”

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.)

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.

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.

Here are extracts from Humza Yousaf’s final speech to MSPs as first minister

On support from MSPs

Let me offer thanks to every single colleague across the political divide for the kindnesses that you have shown me over the years.

We often, and I’m guilty of this too, lament the toxic nature of our political debate and it’s true, there is entrenched tribalism that feels difficult to free ourselves from.

However I will remember far more fondly the kindness and generosity of colleagues over the years.

On Gaza

I cannot let today’s remarks go by without pleading one last time from the frontbenches for the international community to stop any further massacre of the innocent people of Gaza.

A full-scale invasion of Rafah, home to 1.4 million people, 600,000 children, will only result in the slaughter of more innocent civilians in what is likely to be one of the clearest violations of international law to date.

A clear signal must be sent to the Israeli Government that to defy the international community in this way will come with significant consequence and sanction.

Everything possible must be done to demand an immediate ceasefire, a release of all the hostages and an end to arms sales to Israel. We must be on the right side of history and that must mean standing with innocent men, women and children. To do otherwise would be unforgivable.

On being the first Muslim leader of Scotland – and of any European country

I’m grateful for the trust that [his predecessors] put in me over the years because a young Humza Yousaf could never have imagined that he would be able to lead this country.

I was six years old when I was first told to go home, and I’m afraid since then it has been a regular occurrence, in fact almost daily if you look at my social media feeds. And I won’t lie - it is that racial slur that probably hurts me the most.

On Nicola Sturgeon, his predecessor, and John Swinney, his successor

John is one of the most empathetic, kind, compassionate people that I’ve had the pleasure of knowing over the years.

Such qualities are crucial in life, they are absolutely necessary as first minister.

I remember Nicola Sturgeon saying to me that as first minister, you get to make someone’s day every single day in office. I’m also quite possibly making somebody’s day by leaving office, I suspect, too.

However, I can testify that Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely right. You can make someone’s day through the smallest act of kindness – stopping for a selfie with someone, or through transformative policy like the Scottish Child Payment.

The privilege of serving the people of Scotland through this office never gets tiring. I know John will do his family proud, he’ll do our party proud and he will do our nation proud as he dedicates his life to the service of Scotland, the country we are all proud to call home and that we all love so dearly.

The vote to elect John Swinney as first minister was a foregone conclusion given the parliamentary arithmetic and the fact that the Scottish Greens had agreed to abstain, but it is traditional for opposition leaders to put themselves forward.

Their speeches today were fairly lacklustre - perhaps everyone has been worn out by the chaos of the past few weeks. Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross accused the SNP of “replacing one continuity candidate with another “ while Scottish Labour’s Anas Sarwar called for a Holyrood election.

Swinney struck a more ameliorative tone, noting the 25th anniversary of the Scottish parliament and praising other parties for their contribution over the years.

Swinney, of course, won the vote and will now be sworn in at the court of session in Edinburgh tomorrow.

Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has accused Labour of trying to win the election by frightening pensioners with “fake news”.

He was speaking during Treasury questions in the Commons where he rejected Rachel Reeves’ suggestion that the Tory plan to abolish employees’ national insurance over the long term could result in income tax rising by 8p in the pound – a move that would clobber pensioners in particular. (See 12.10pm.)

Reeves, the shadow chancellor, asked Hunt if he accepted analysis saying that, if the government decided to get rid of national insurance by merging it with income tax, income tax could have to got up by 8p in the pound. Hunt replied:

Which is why it is not our policy.

In response, Reeves said that Hunt himself spoke about the possibility of merging income tax with national insurance in an interview after the budget. And she pointed out that Nigel Lawson, chancellor under Margaret Thatcher, himself said that merging income tax with national insurance would create many losers, espcially amongst the elderly.

Hunt said that his party’s policy was to abolish national insurance completely. He went on:

If Labour’s strategy is to win the election by frightening pensions with fake news stories, then I would just say that Britain deserves better.

Outgoing first minister Humza Yousaf made his final statement to the Holyrood chamber this afternoon, thanking colleagues across the chamber for their kindnesses since he was first elected as a nervous 26-year-old.

His voice choked with emotion as he thanked MSPs for the opportunity “to defy the far right, bigots and racists” in serving as first minister “an honour I didn’t think was for people who looked like me”.

He praised the new SNP leader John Swinney as “one of the most empathetic, kind and compassionate people I have known” and used his final remarks as first minister to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, a return of all hostages and an end to arms sales to Israel.

His statement was met with warm applause and hugs from the SNP benches, including former FM Nicola Sturgeon and Swinney, who will now ask the chamber for its backing to become the next FM.

In an article for the Guardian today, Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, says he is committing to building 10,000 council homes in his next mayoral term. He set out some details of how this would be achieved, as well as other housing policies, in a press announcement this morning.

In his article Burnham says this is an example of how metro mayors are repairing damage caused by policies introduced by the Thatcher government. He explains:

As it becomes more established, a theme is developing with English devolution: fixing the fundamentals of life – housing, utilities, transport – means reversing things that went wrong in the 1980s. So, just as Greater Manchester was first to end deregulation of buses, we now want to see the suspension of the right-to-buy policy from any new council homes that we build in our city-region. To be clear: there is no honest solution to the housing crisis as long as it stays in its current form.

This is how English devolution is beginning to change politics for the better. For too long, the Westminster consensus has been that you can’t challenge some of the dogma of the Thatcher era. But, since the arrival of the Labour mayors, trains and buses have started to go back under public control and there is a much greater focus on issues like homelessness.

Slowly but surely, we are freeing ourselves from the suffocating effects of the 1980s. We now have the real prospect of a Labour prime minister working with Labour mayors to fix the housing crisis and deliver true levelling up.

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, was doing the morning interview round this morning to promote WorkWell, a scheme being piloted offering people health support if they need it to return to work. In a news release for the £64m pilot, covering 15 areas, the Department for Work and Pensions said

The WorkWell pilots … will connect 59,000 people from October to local support services including physiotherapy and counselling so they can get the tailored help they need to stay in or return to work.

The WorkWell service provides a single, joined-up assessment and gateway into both employment support and health services locally to help people manage their conditions and to identify workplace adjustments or support that would enable them to stay in work or return sooner.

Participants do not need to be claiming any government benefits and will receive personalised support from a work and health coach to understand their current health and social barriers to work and draw up a plan to help them overcome them. Evidence shows that work is an effective way to improve wellbeing – reducing the risk of depression, improving physical health, and building self-confidence and financial independence.

In response, Sandi Wassmer, CEO at the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion (enei), said that, although it was good to see the government recognise that some people need support to return to work, she was concerned that it was not mandatory for employers.

Alison McGovern, the acting shadow work and pensions secretary, said:

Labour will look closely at any programme supporting people into work. But, with a record number of people out of work due to sickness and millions of people on spiralling NHS and mental health waiting lists, we need a long-term plan to fix our NHS and get Britain working, not more pilots skirting around the edges.

University vice-chancellors will attend a meeting in No 10 later this week to discuss how to tackle rising antisemitism on campuses, Downing Street has said.

At this morning’s lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said that Rishi Sunak opened cabinet this morning by saying there had been an “unacceptable rise in antisemitism on our university campuses” and vice-chancellors would be meeting to discuss “the need for our universities to be safe for our Jewish students”.

The spokesperson said:

Our university campuses should be places of rigorous debate, but they should also be tolerant places where people of all communities, particularly Jewish students at this time, are treated with respect …

The right to free speech does not include the right to harass people or incite violence.

We expect university leaders to take robust action in dealing with that kind of behaviour and that will be the subject of the conversation in No 10 later this week to ensure a zero-tolerance approach to this sort of behaviour is adopted on all campuses.

Asked if the police should be called in to clear protest camps at British universities, as as been happening in the US, the spokesman said: “We want to see university leaders taking a robust approach to unacceptable behaviour.”

Rishi Sunak has said he is “deeply concerned” about the consequences of Israel attacking Rafah. Asked about the situation in Gaza, Sunak told broadcasters:

We’ve been consistent in saying that we want to see an immediate humanitarian pause in this conflict so that we can crucially release the hostages, get them back to their families and get more aid in to Gaza, people desperately need it, and then use that pause to build a more lasting and sustainable ceasefire.

When it comes to the question of Rafah, again I’ve been clear that we are deeply concerned about the full military incursion of Rafah, given the humanitarian consequences of that.

I’ve made that point specifically to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu whenever I’ve spoken to him.

In a clip for broadcasters, Rishi Sunak declined to say that China was responsible for the cyber-attack that led to armed forces’ payroll information being exposed, but he did claim the UK already had a “very robust” security policy in relation to Beijing.

Asked about the incident, Sunak said:

There are indications that a malign actor has compromised the armed forces’ payment network, but I do want to reassure people that the Ministry of Defence has already taken action in [taking the network] offline and making sure that people affected are supported in the right way.

There’s a limit to what I can say about this now, but the defence secretary will be making a full statement to parliament later today.

Asked why he was not naming China as the party responsible, Sunak did not answer directly, but he went on:

More generally, if you look back to our integrated review, I set out a very robust policy towards China, which means that we need to take the powers which we have done to protect ourselves against the risks that China, and other countries, pose to us.

They are a country with fundamentally different values to ours, acting in a way that is more authoritarian at home, assertive abroad.

That’s why for example, we blocked Chinese investment into a sensitive semiconductor last year. That’s just one of the numerous actions that we’ve taken to protect this country, and recently I announced a historic increase in our defence spending to 2.5% GDP. I made the point that we are facing facing an axis of authoritarian states, including Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, which pose a risk to our values, our interest and indeed our country.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson said that the government was reviewing the operations of a third-party contractor whose systems were hacked in the MoD cyber-attack. He said:

In relation to the specific contractor involved in this incident, a security review of that contractor’s operations is under way and appropriate steps will be taken after that.

Humza Yousaf has formally tendered his resignation as first minister to the king, the Scottish government has announced. In his letter he wrote:

Your Majesty,

With my humble duty, I write as anticipated in my letter to Your Majesty of 29 April to tender to Your Majesty my resignation from the office of First Minister. I propose that my resignation take effect from the start of Scottish parliamentary plenary business on Tuesday 7 May 2024.

Throughout my time as First Minister, I have been most grateful for your counsel and the kindness you have shown to both Nadia and I.

It has been my pleasure to serve Your Majesty and the people of Scotland since March 2023.

Eleven NGOs working closely with asylum seekers hoping to cross the Channel to seek sanctuary in the UK, have warned the UK government that the Rwanda policy is not acting as a deterrent and will not “stop the boats”

The NGOs, including Calais Food Collective, L’Auberge des Migrants and Care4Calais, have issued a statement saying that the increasing militarisation of the border in northern France, thanks to bilateral deals between UK and French authorities, which is funding harsh evictions and policing methods, is making people feel like they are in a warzone and is encouraging them to cross as quickly as possible, however dangerous this might be.

The statement calls for an end to this “madness” and the creation of safe routes for those aiming to seek asylum in the UK, which would end the need for asylum seekers and their families to risk the deadly crossing.

In their statement, the charities say:

The UK Home Office has launched a ‘shock operation’ with asylum seekers to be detained across the UK and removed to detention centres until they can be deported to Rwanda. Those people who are detained during the coming weeks will therefore remain in detention centres for an indefinite period. This is a violation of their fundamental human rights.

As organisations working in solidarity with people on the move who are blocked at the UK-France border, we witness on a daily basis the violence through which the policy of dissuasion acts. Here, people on the move face expulsion from their informal living sites every 24-48 hours, by riot police who take their tents, for most their only form of shelter. When people on the move attempt to cross to the UK on small boats, they are assailed by police who slash their boats, preventing them from making the crossing.

The politics of dissuasion isn’t working and has never worked. Successive governments in the UK and Europe have been unable to imagine any alternative to the management of the presence of people on the move on European soil than the politics of dissuasion. In the face of the repeated failure of dissuasion politics to reduce the numbers of people seeking to join Europe, successive governments have doubled down on the cruelty of their policies. As long as the situation continues in this way there will be more deaths, as five people drowned in the channel on the night of the Rwanda bill’s passing, and more lives destroyed and made miserable, but there will be no change in the movement of people towards Europe and the UK. The number of people crossing to the UK in small boats during the first four months of 2024 is the highest recorded for that period.

Here are the main, new points from Rachel Reeves’s speech and Q&A this morning. We have already published a substantial preview based on what was briefed in advance.

• Reeves said pensioners could face a “tax bombshell” under Rishi Sunak’s long-term plan to abolish employees’ national insurance, because it could mean income tax rising by 8p in the pound to compensate. This would hit pensioners in particular because they do not pay national insurance, but they do pay income tax. Referring to the plan, Reeves said:

A £46 billion unfunded plan to abolish national insurance contributions – if Labour had put a similar proposal on the table, voters, journalists and our opponents would be demanding to know where the money was going to come from.

And yet two months on from the spring budget – and despite having countless opportunities to clarify their plans – there are still no answers from ministers on how they will pay for it.

What services will they cut?

What other taxes will they put up?

What changes will they make to pensions?

New analysis has shown that replacing national insurance contribution revenues with higher basic and higher rates of income tax would mean rates of income tax going up by eight percent.

A tax bombshell aimed squarely at Britain’s pensioners.

This is a new line from Labour, and perhaps a better one than anything tried so far. Labour has been criticising this policy for the last two months, but it has not yet settled on one line of attack that has achieved powerful cut through. At various points it has argued that, to fund this pledge, the Tories would have to borrow more, cut spending or put up taxes. All of these propositions are a bit vague, and more recently Labour has been focusing on the threat to pensioners. At PMQs last month Starmer argued that the plan would mean the value of the state pension being cut. When Sunak ruled this out last week, Starmer instead suggested the plan would mean the state pension age having to rise to 75. Sunak wriggled on this, but as an attack line it is a bit flawed because 75 is unrealistically high, and even under Labour the pension age will go up. Today Reeves is arguing that the policy will hit pensioners, not because their pensions will get less generous, but because they might be hit by higher taxes. It is all hypothetical, but it is designed to scare the living daylights out of elderly Telegraph readers who have income not is not subject to national insurance but that is subject to income tax.

• Reeves confirmed that workers would still be allowed to stay on zero hours contracts if they wanted under Labour’s plan to ban “exploitative” ones. And she insisted that businesses had no reason to be concerned about the plans. She said:

The truth is that many, many businesses already go well beyond what is set out in the new deal for working people – they don’t have zero-hour contracts, they are not using practices of fire and rehire, they give better rights around sick pay. So businesses have got nothing to fear from the new deal for working people.

But [for] businesses who do use these methods there will be a level playing field to ensure that businesses can’t undercut each other by using zero-hour contracts or through fire and rehire.

She said Labour had spent a lot of time consulting with businesses already, and she went on:

And so, for example, on zero hour contracts after 12 weeks, if you’ve been working regular hours, you will be able to get that permanent contract. But if you want that flexibility as a worker, you can remain on the contract you’re one. It’s just about saying that the flexibility can’t be all one way. And there’ll be nothing in Labour legislation that would stop employers from using overtime, for example, or taking workers on on a seasonal basis.

Asked about the timing of the legislation, Reeves said a Labour government would “bring forward legislation within the first 100 days of a Labour government”. And it would consult on the plan within those 100 days, she said.

• Reeves said she did not think the results last week “point to a hung parliament”. She was responding to Tory claims that the results do point to a hung parliament, which are entirely based on a projection published by Sky News on Friday afternoon suggesting that, if people voted in a general election exactly as they had in the local elections, Labour would not win a majority. As Pippa Crerar explains here, there are many reasons why it is not realistic to assume that you can a direct local elections/general election read across like this. (To his credit, Prof Michael Thrasher, the psephologist who came up with the projection, barely mentioned it in an analysis of the election results he published in the Sunday Times. He has been pilloried on social media, but in part this may be because a projection never intended as a forecast ended up getting far more attention than it was supposed to because, for No 10, it was the only silver lining to the results available.)

• Reeeves said she would not committed to unfreezing tax allowances because she could not make unfunded spending commitments.

• She suggested that, if figures due out of Friday show that the economy is growing, Labour would be entitled to describe this as just a technical recovery. In her speech she said:

Let me be clear – Keir Starmer and I won’t be doing a victory lap for finally meeting the inflation target for the first time in three years.

And we won’t be doing a victory lap over going from negative growth to no growth either.

If Jeremy Hunt wants to call it a ‘technical’ recession, then I assume he’s comfortable calling it a ‘technical’ recovery.

Not a recovery for working people.

• She sought to counter arguments that Labour is not offering proper change at the election by arguing “stability is change”. In her speech she said:

After years of political chaos and short-term thinking, at this election stability is change.

The stability on which households and business alike rely if they are to plan ahead.

Stability underpinned by strong fiscal rules and robust, independent institutions – the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

And stability of purpose enshrined in national missions to bring government and business together, to meet the challenges of the future.

UPDATE: LabourList has published the full text of the speech.

The Chinese embassy in the UK has now issued a statement saying that claims Beijing was behind the Ministry of Defence data hack are “completely fabricated and malicious slanders”. An embassy spokesperson said:

The so-called cyber-attacks by China against the UK are completely fabricated and malicious slanders.

We strongly oppose such accusations. China has always firmly fought all forms of cyber-attack according to law.

China does not encourage, support or condone cyber-attacks. At the same time, we oppose the politicisation of cybersecurity issues and the baseless denigration of other countries without factual evidence.

China has always upheld the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. China has neither the interest nor the need to meddle in the internal affairs of the UK.

We urge the relevant parties in the UK to stop spreading false information, stop fabricating so-called China threat narratives, and stop their anti-China political farce.

Q: Union leaders are warning against watering down the new deal for working people. Can you commit to doing that in the first 100 days, and ending zero hours contracts.

Reeves says the government will legislate in its first 100 days, including on ending “exploitative zero hours contracts”.

Q: What is your message to business people who are concerned about these plans?

Reeves says many businesses go well beyond what is set out in Labour’s plans.

They don’t have zero hour contracts. They’re not using practices of fire and rehire. They give better rights around sick pay, for example. And so businesses have got nothing to fear from the new deal for working people.

She says, after 12 weeks, Labour would allow people with regular hours not to have a zero hours contract. But she says, if people want to stay on a zero hours contract, they could do so.

Q: In the light of what is happening in Gaza, should the UK end arms sales to Israel?

Reeves says there should be no attack on Rafah.

On arms sales, she says there are strict rules governing them, and she says they should be followed.

Reeves says Labour has a vision for the country. Stability will be change, she argues.

I know – warm words are not enough. I do not underestimate the challenges we face. But I am so ambitious for our country. I know the huge potential found all across Britain and the constraints that are holding that potential back are not immutable forces.

They require vision, courage, and responsible government. Vision – to pursue a different approach, drawing on new economic thinking shaping governments in Europe, America and around the world – but which this Conservative government resists.

Courage – to put the public interest before short-term party politics, and take on vested interests.

And responsible government – offering stability of direction in a fast-changing world.

Because after years of political chaos and short-term thinking at this election: stability is change.

This is a clever response to the argument, while voters want change, Labour is not really offering it, because it is too committed to fiscal restraint.

.

Reeves turns to the Tory long-term proposal to abolish employees’ national insurance.

If Labour came out with a plan like this, the media would be constantly challenging the party to explain how it would be funded, she says.

To replace national insurance, income tax would have to rise by 8p in the pound, she says. That would be “a tax bombshell aimed squarely at Britain’s pensioners”.

Reeves is referring to the fact that pensioners pay income tax, but they don’t have to pay national insurance.

Nick Boles, a former Conservative minister, is introducing Rachel Reeves. Boles served as a minister in David Cameron’s government, but he left the party over Brexit and recently he has been advising Labour.

Boles says he and Reeves were elected to the Commons at the same time and that it was clear that, when Labour got its act together, she would play a leading role. He goes on:

The reason, I think, why Rachel has made such an impression on the British public is because she understands something that all successful chancellors, whatever party they belong, to understand.

And that’s what I call the central paradox of economic management, which is that it’s by demonstrating discipline, responsibility, and a sense of the importance of restraint that you win the right, you earn the trust, to be able to make transformative change.

Rachel understands that, many of the great chancellorss in history have understood that, but unfortunately some rather more recent chancellors and prime ministers have not.

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, said that a “state actor” seemed to be responsible for the Ministry of Defence data hack.

In an interview with GB News, Stride suggested that a foreign government was responsible. But he did not blame China – even there are reports claiming that Beijing has been deemed responsible.

Stride said Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, would be giving more details in a statement to MPs this afternoon. He said:

It does appear I think at this stage to be some kind of state actor but let’s wait to find out what we hear.

As to China, we’ve made it very clear in our defence review, in the refresh of that review, that China remains, I think we’ve defined them as an epoch-making challenge to the UK in terms of economic security.

That’s why, obviously, we’ve taken action in the past in terms of getting Huawei hardware out of parts of our infrastructure here in the UK, and also interventions in terms of energy security as well.

So we do take this very seriously but at the end of the day also they are a very important economic partner and we have global challenges like climate change that we need to engage with China in order to address.

China has rejected claims it was to blame. The Chinese foreign ministry has said that it opposes all forms of cyberattack and that this issue should not be used to smear other countries.

Good morning. Whenever Rishi Sunak or any other minister speaks in public and tries to explain why the Conservative government deserves to be re-elected, their main argument is to insist that “the plan is working”. In a speech this morning, Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, will confront that claim head on.

As Pippa Crerar reports in her preview story, Reeves will say that Tory claims that the economy is reviving are “deluded and completely out of touch”.

Reeves will say:

By the time of the next election, we can, and should, expect interest rates to be cut, Britain to be out of recession and inflation to have returned to the Bank of England’s target.

Indeed, these things could happen this month.

I already know what the chancellor will say in response to one or all these events happening. He has been saying it for months now: ‘The economy is turning a corner,’ ‘our plan is working,’ ‘stick with us.’

I want to take those arguments head on because they do not speak to the economic reality.

Explaining the rationale for the speech, a Labour aide told Politico’s Sam Blewett, that it was designed to pre-empt the “weird victory lap” that Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are expected to embark on when the economy comes out of recession and interest rates go down. “We want to deny them that reset moment,” the aide said.

But, according to the extracts in advance, Reeves will also take a swipe at another Tory talking point. After the local elections, the Conservatives revived the argument that Britain should not vote Labour because it would result in a “coalition of chaos”, with a minority Labour government dependent on support from the SNP, the Lib Dems or the Greens. At the weekend a No 10 source used this in a briefing to the Telegraph.

Sunak himself did not use the phrase, but on Sunday night he said: “Keir Starmer propped up in Downing Street by the SNP, Liberal Democrats and the Greens would be a disaster for Britain.”

David Cameron used a version of this argument very successfully in the 2015 general election campaign. However, given what happened in the six years after Brexit, his phrase is now best remembered not as an example of brilliant political messaging, but mostly as a colossal joke, and one of the worst predictions ever.

That is why it was odd to see No 10 resuscitating the line nine years later.

And in her speech Reeves will hit back, saying that at the next election voters will have a clear choice between “five more years of chaos with the Conservatives” or “stability with a changed Labour party”.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.

10am: Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, is giving a speech in the City of London.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Late morning: Sunak is on a visit in London. He has two visits scheduled today.

2.30pm: Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, takes question in the Commons.

Afternoon: MSPs are expected to vote to elect John Swinney as the new first minister.

After 3.30pm: Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, is due to give a statement to MPs on the Ministry of Defence personal data hack.

If you want to contact me, do use the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.