China: Breach of UK Parliamentarians’ Data

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on reports that the phone records and financial information of parliamentarians sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party were obtained by individuals commissioned by representatives of the People’s Republic of China.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Before I begin, let me say that my thoughts and condolences—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with those who were injured and killed in the horrific attack in Poland on Saturday.

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his question, and for the opportunity to respond to it today. While I appreciate that there has understandably been significant personal interest in Daily Mail reporting about alleged activity that took place between 2018 and 2023, hon. Members will recognise that I am rightly limited in what I can say in relation to intelligence matters. I can say that there is an ongoing FBI investigation, as well as a live Interpol arrest warrant, but it would not be appropriate for me or any member of this Government to comment on the specific allegations that have been made. We must not risk prejudicing a live national security investigation.

What I can also say is that this Government, and I personally, take the safety and security of Members of both Houses extremely seriously, and I understand the concerns that have been raised. For that reason, I have ensured that my officials are available to meet any right hon. or hon. Member affected by this issue. Earlier this year, alongside the director general of MI5, I held a cross-party meeting with representatives of political parties to highlight the threat of political interference and the guidance and support that is available. This includes advice provided by the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority setting out a range of measures that Members of both Houses and their offices can take to protect themselves, their data and their devices from a range of different threats, including espionage. Transnational repression, espionage and political interference will never be tolerated, and anyone responsible for conducting it will face the full force of the law.

This Government have brought forward robust measures to defend our country and our democracy from state-backed threats, including from China. That includes launching the political interference and espionage action plan, running training for frontline police officers to better spot, understand and respond to state threat activity, and investing an extra £600 million in our intelligence services to increase their ability to detect and disrupt state threats. We do all of that, and much more besides, because national security is our first duty and because we will never tolerate attempts to undermine the security of our nation or of those who serve, whether in this place or in any other part of our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

While I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he did not really answer the question. It is not about state security, but individual Members of Parliament who are being attacked and from whom information is being taken so that they can be attacked in future. That is the question we are asking. I understand that Mr Miller, who was originally arrested in an FBI operation for trying to sell arms via a source through to China, revealed that an ex-detective of Scotland Yard, Keith Hunter, had been asked to compile information on the financials and personal telephone calls of certain Members of Parliament, all of whom it appears were sanctioned already by the Chinese Communist party. The bit that it is vital that the Minister answers is that when Mr Hunter was about to do this, or was doing it, Mr Miller told him that China already had the information.

My question, therefore, is what do the Government know about what China has on us, and how much more is China trying to gather? It is important that these questions are answered, because it is not just us who are sanctioned, but our family members too. It is about their security—one of mine lives abroad—and it worries me. What did the Government really know about this? Why have they not spoken to each of us as individuals to explain what was happening? They could have done it under guidance with security, but none the less, they have not done it. Since Sunday, not one single security individual has attempted to contact any of us about the story in the Daily Mail, which is now being read by the British population. Will the Minister answer the question? As sanctioned individuals, with the freedom of speech that we exercise in this House, and under the protection of Mr Speaker, I simply say that this is not good enough. Why are we not being talked to? Why were we not taken to one side and informed?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in raising concerns about these and associated matters for many years, and we have had numerous exchanges to that end across this Dispatch Box. I have huge respect for the consistency with which he brings forward these issues. He is, though, a very experienced Member of this House, and he is inviting me to provide a level of operational detail that he will understand, and that right hon. and hon. Members and Mr Speaker will understand, I am not able to provide. To do so, or to speculate about the actions of individuals under investigation, runs a very significant risk of prejudicing ongoing investigations or subsequent proceedings. It would be recklessly irresponsible for any Security Minister to come to this House and run that risk. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, even if he does not like the response.

I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said to him previously and what I said in my earlier remarks: my door is always open to any parliamentarian who wants to take the opportunity to discuss these matters privately and in an appropriate forum that will enable a discreet exchange of views. I know that you yourself, Mr Speaker, take these matters incredibly seriously.

The Government have been absolutely consistent in their stated aim to ensure that no malign actor or actors can successfully interfere with our democratic processes. I pay tribute to the last Government and the then Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), for their important work in setting up the Defending Democracy Taskforce, but this Government have built on that work and invested in those procedures. The taskforce is the fulcrum that brings together the different parts of the national security machinery to ensure that our response is robust and proportionate. This Government will make sure that we have a proportionate response to the threats that we face, and that democratically elected parliamentarians here and those in the other place can go about their business without fear or favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is no; I have not been briefed, even as of today.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not normally raise this, but I will, given your role in protecting Members of Parliament, who have been under attack by the Chinese Government. I applied for this urgent question so that the Government would have an opportunity to explain, at the Dispatch Box, what they knew, and what actions they may take or have taken. Bear in mind that these cases were brought up in 2021; this did not happen yesterday, or on Sunday. Are the Government categorically telling us that they know absolutely nothing about this, and have done nothing about it? They have done nothing to inform any of us—or you, Mr Speaker—about it, which is an absolute disgrace. It is treating this House with utter contempt.

[Mr Speaker]

We are not going to continue the debate. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important. I am sure that this will be pursued through other avenues. Let us leave it at that for today.