China: Breach of UK Parliamentarians’ Data
Tuesday, 10 November 2026
Contributions
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)Conservative
(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)Labour
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.
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?
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.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)Labour
I appreciate that the Minister cannot talk about security matters, so I shall try to broaden the question, and will hopefully receive a clearer response. It is obvious that agents of the Chinese Government, and the Chinese Government themselves, are targeting pro-democracy campaigners, whether they sit in Parliament, are citizens of Britain or are in Hong Kong. Just this week we saw that Joshua Wong had been sentenced to 10 years in prison for standing up for democracy in Hong Kong, and we have seen the transnational repression of British national overseas passport holders and UK citizens here on our streets. Will the Government summon the Chinese ambassador to talk about the case reported in the Daily Mail and the transnational repression, as well as calling for Joshua Wong’s release, which they did for Jimmy Lai? Will they sanction those responsible for the national security law prosecutions, as the United States has? Will the Minister be able to tell Parliament what further consequences will follow if the Chinese Government do not start to behave differently towards the UK and will not release Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points. The Government share the concerns about Mr Wong and Jimmy Lai, and I know that she will have noted recent Foreign Office statements about those particular cases. Let me make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend and the House that the Government take matters involving transnational repression extremely seriously. Any attempt to intimidate China’s critics overseas, including residents here in the UK, is completely unacceptable.
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
I call the shadow Minister.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)Conservative
May I first send our condolences to those who were killed in Poland? I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all your support and protection for Members. It is, however, extremely disappointing that the Government did not come forward with their own statement. Members of this House and the other place—including Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani)—have again been targeted by the Chinese Communist party. Money channelled through Ministry of State Security front companies was used to secure kompromat to be weaponised by the Chinese state. This is an attack on our democracy, yet it was not significant enough for a Minister to come here of his or her own accord. Most shockingly, those targeted found out from the press. The Government did not brief them—and it is unfair to say that they could not be briefed, because the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), and I were briefed 10 days before the arrest of Christopher Cash, so people absolutely can be briefed in advance. The FBI arrested two individuals in Serbia in April 2025. They were indicted and fled to China, where they remain under Chinese Communist party protection. When did the Government first know? Has the relationship with the Five Eyes become so degraded that intelligence normally shared by the United States was withheld for over a year, or were they told and did they then decide that Members just did not deserve to know? This is a damning indictment of the Government’s approach to the Chinese Communist party. In June, the Five Eyes warned of economic honeytraps. In July, Chinese Communist party staff threatened Tibetan protesters with illegal tasers, and there have still been no repercussions. In September, MI5 warned that more than 100 university staff had been contributing to projects run by Chinese intelligence fronts. In October, the United States designated Confucius Institutes a national security threat, yet this Government have refused to implement protections that I secured in law which would enable them to be closed. This month, United Front networks reopened the overseas police stations that the shadow Foreign Secretary shut down in 2023. Meanwhile, Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong remain imprisoned in Hong Kong for speaking out for democracy. There are still zero registrations on the foreign influence registration scheme for anyone working for China, and the annual report is 133 days late under this Government. These are not incidents to be dismissed. This is an onslaught against our Parliament and our country, and the Government sit here pretending otherwise. Mandelson’s China reset has failed. It was dreamed up in conjunction with the National Security Adviser, whose vetting process was opaque at best and who remains missing in action from Parliament. This Government’s one token achievement was lifting sanctions. [ Interruption. ] Mr Speaker, to quote something you said recently, you were far more lenient with the others. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for the Government to act? They should put it in the enhanced tier of FIRS and protect our country.
Order. When you said that you needed 10 seconds, you did not tell me that you meant half a minute.
The hon. Lady is entitled to make her points in the way that she has done, but I am sorry that she has chosen to do so. She will be furious when she finds out who was in government between 2018 and 2023. I regret the way that she has sought to politicise these issues, which should actually bring the House together in standing to defend our democracy and the rights of Members of this House to do their duty without fear or favour. It is a sad indictment of her position that she has chosen to play the political card in the way that she has done. It is particularly regretful because she was in the House and will remember the bipartisan approach that underpinned the passing of the National Security Act 2023. That has been the approach of this Government, not least when she has had issues that have required our support. That is the endeavour in which we should proceed in order to protect our national security. That is the way in which the public expect us to behave, rather than seeking to score cheap political points. The hon. Lady made a number of points, some of which are worthy of response, but let me focus on one in particular. She spoke about FIRS and the annual report. FIRS is a very useful tool that will disrupt operational activity by our adversaries. FIRS is an instrument that was included in the National Security Act 2023, which, as I say, was an important piece of legislation that was passed on a bipartisan basis. It is this Government who worked incredibly hard to introduce FIRS on time and on budget, and it is this Government who are developing FIRS as an operational capability in our armoury. The hon. Lady asked me specifically about the timing of the publication of the annual report. I understand why she would want to do that, and I am sure that I would do the same if I were in her place. We are committed to publishing the first annual report in full, and we will do so as soon as possible, but I reiterate the point that we worked on a cross-party basis with the previous Government to legislate for FIRS. This Government are getting on with implementing that important capability, and we will bring forward the report as soon as possible.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)Labour
The threat that this country faces from hostile state actors is of grave concern to Members and parties on both sides of the House, and the security of parliamentarians as they go about their roles is central to democracy. A key component of countering political interference in our democracy is the foreign influence registration scheme. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but can he say more about the funding that is going into tackling hostile state threats? Will he confirm that the foreign influence registration scheme is being operationalised, and will he commit to not politicising the security of parliamentarians, unlike, I am afraid to say, the Opposition?
I can give my hon. Friend the commitments that he seeks, and I am sure that that is what Mr Speaker and the public would expect. They would expect us to behave in a way that seeks to bring together Members on both sides of the House, so that we can stand against the threats that we face and work to achieve common solutions to address them. My hon. Friend makes an important point about FIRS, which is an important operational tool that is still in its infancy. This Government introduced it on 1 July 2025. We are still working out how we can make sure that it delivers the maximum operational effect, and still working to ensure that it is an effective capability. It is doing good work on behalf of the nation, and we should all get behind it.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Mr Speaker, I know you take the safety of Members of this House very seriously. These revelations are deeply alarming and reflect yet another attack on our liberal democracy. As MPs, we know that our parliamentary staff receive regular reminders to be vigilant against the CCP and its efforts to gain sensitive information. We receive those as MPs, yet we are told that the Home Office has not taken proactive steps to inform the Members concerned in this case. I do not think the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who asked the urgent question, got the response he possibly deserves, so I will try again. When were Ministers first aware and when were officials first aware of the information that was reported in the Daily Mail this weekend? Will the Minister commit today to reviewing the process, so that Members are told promptly whenever the Government learn that their personal information is compromised, particularly when it is done by a hostile foreign power? Recent reports have revealed what the Financial Times has described as a “chronic shortage of China expertise” in the British state, both in the FCDO and in MI6. Meanwhile, the US has built a dedicated China office. Will the Minister set out a plan to rebuild our China expertise urgently, and will he consider adding China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended?
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, although I am slightly perplexed that he has sought to get me to do things that he knows I am not able to do from this Dispatch Box. I always listen very carefully to what he has to say, not least because of the constituency he represents and the extraordinarily important work that his constituents do on behalf of the nation. It is because I value their work, their contribution and their important commitment to our national security that I am not going to take any risks in relation to prejudicing activities that are under way. His constituents will understand that, and I hope that he does as well. I thought the hon. Member made an important point about ensuring that we do everything we possibly can to protect our democratic processes. I give him an assurance—and I hope you would agree with this assertion, Mr Speaker—that the Government work very closely with Mr Speaker and the parliamentary authorities, the police and intelligence partners to ensure that Members of both Houses receive relevant briefings where that is necessary and appropriate. I completely understand the demand and clamour among Members to know more information earlier than we are able to present it to them. I fully understand the desire for that information, but I hope he will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to get into a commentary, particularly on the Floor of the House, on issues that may lead to the prejudicing of ongoing investigations, not least given the nature of the allegations that have been made. That simply would not be appropriate and I am not going to do it, but I hope Members do understand how seriously the Government and I personally take these issues, and we will work around the clock to make sure that protections are in place so that Members can do their job.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)Labour
Members across this place know personally about espionage risks to our democracy, and I know that that is true of the shadow Security Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must all be vigilant as we go about our work in this place?
My hon. Friend makes a really helpful and important point. She is right that Members across this House have had personal experiences in this regard. I only hope that, rather than seeking to score political points as a consequence of those experiences, we come together and ensure that our response is appropriate and proportionate. That is the approach I will take and the approach this Government will take.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)Conservative
The evidence that China poses a threat to our national security and democracy is clearly overwhelming. We have spent a lot of time discussing this matter in the House, including the threats to parliamentarians and the overall security threat. The Minister has spoken in glowing terms about the foreign influence registration scheme, which the Government introduced, and said that it is working. Can he give an explanation to this House as to why China is not on the enhanced tier of FIRS?
The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of this House and has served in very senior roles in government, which is why I hope she understands that the Government sometimes have to make quite nuanced, balanced judgments when it comes to national security policy and our relationship with other countries. There will be those in this place—I am not saying that she falls into this category—who seek to categorise our relationship with China in a single word. She knows from her experience in government that it is much more nuanced than that. As successive Governments have maintained, our relationship with China cannot be reduced to a single word. However, we recognise—it is important to be absolutely up front about this, as I have been from this Dispatch Box on many occasions—that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks to foreign interference and espionage, as well as transnational repression. We will challenge all those threats robustly and we will make sure that we have the appropriate toolkit to do so.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)Liberal Democrat
The Minister must now recognise the scale and sophistication of the Chinese Communist party’s efforts to undermine our country, this House and the security of Hongkongers who settled here to flee persecution. Despite that, last week the Home Secretary rather flippantly referred to Hongkongers needing to prove their lack of criminality to achieve settlement. It is, of course, vital that no one who is a criminal enters our country, but as we saw in the case of Wu Chi-wai earlier this year, the Home Office has treated a criminal record incurred under the anti-democratic national security law as grounds for refusal. Does the Minister accept that the Home Secretary’s remarks were clumsy and commit to working across Government to ensure that instructions are issued to immigration officials to fix that practice and ensure that Hongkongers fleeing CCP persecution are protected?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I am certain that the Home Secretary intended no offence by the remarks she made, but he raises some important points. If he were to write to me with them, I would be very happy to consider them further.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)Conservative
Our colleague, the Chairman of Ways and Means—I notified her that I was going to mention her—is sanctioned by China. She was sanctioned because she constantly raised the horrific human rights abuses against the Uyghurs. The Minister is pointing out all the reasons why he cannot answer questions and cannot say anything, but one thing he could do is to say to the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that, having said there would be an ethical procurement policy, there should be a pause on processed renewables materials that come from China, because there appears to be plenty of evidence that human rights abuses of the Uyghurs are taking place to produce them. Will he commit to doing that?
The right hon. Gentleman is a seasoned commentator on these matters and I always listen very carefully to what he has to say. Let me restate what I have said from this Dispatch Box on many occasions: it is totally unacceptable that any Member of this House has been sanctioned by China, or by any other nation for that matter. He will know that there are a range of processes in place across government to guide Secretaries of State in their decisions, whether in respect of investment or procurement. Sometimes there have to be difficult trade-offs, but in the end the first priority of this Government—and, I would hope, any Government—is our national security. We will make sure that our policies reflect that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)Scottish National Party
While it is unacceptable that Members of this Parliament are under constant hostile threat from foreign states, it is also unacceptable that this Government are unwilling to offer protection by taking appropriate action against China. Despite the CCP sanctioning, spying on and now accessing the phone and financial records of parliamentarians, the Government still refuse to publish the China audit in full or to publish any strategy on how to deal with this threat. Why, given all the evidence, have the Government not finally added China to the enhanced tier of FIRS? I draw attention to the fact that the Minister has dodged that question up to now. Given that the revelations we are talking about today happened in 2021, can he confirm whether a full UK investigation, alongside the FBI investigation, is now taking place?
I simply do not accept the premise of the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked, or the way that he asked it. This Government prioritise national security, and we will ensure that— [ Interruption. ] I find it unfortunate that Opposition Members are questioning this Government’s commitment to national security. There was a time, which will be well remembered, when matters of national security were not thrown across Dispatch Boxes in the way that we have seen done today. It is beyond disappointing that some Members are choosing to behave in that way, and I am afraid that it reflects very poorly on them. The hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) has heard what I have said about FIRS. He will understand that decisions about FIRS will be brought forward in the normal way, but I assure him that this Government will ensure that we have the appropriate legislative framework and the right operational toolkit to guard against the threats that we face.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)Conservative
Every Member of this House should be concerned about this affront to democracy, because the threat from China is incredibly well documented. Current and former heads of the security services have talked prominently about the threat from China and foreign Governments. We have industrial espionage and Chinese activity aimed at infiltrating our energy systems. We could not be clearer-eyed than we are, so what more has to happen before the Government put China on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Week after week, we get reports of industrial espionage, hacking and threats to democracy. What has to happen before the Government finally acknowledge that China should be on the enhanced tier?
I accept the important point about the nature of the threat that we face internationally, and specifically from China; I have just referenced that. FIRS is an important operational tool. As I said to the shadow Minister, we will publish the annual report as soon as we are able to. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about future registrations made using that operational tool. That is not how this has worked previously, and it is not how it will work today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
The targeted harvesting of phone and financial records appears to be part of a co-ordinated campaign of transnational repression against critics of Beijing. Given this escalatory behaviour, will the Minister review the powers available to our intelligence services to disrupt the commercial proxies, and state plainly what consequences the People’s Republic of China will face for executing operations against sitting British parliamentarians, bearing in mind that the website of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, was hacked, and articles were replaced with pro-China propaganda? Quite clearly, that is something that we would never have agreed to.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is worth reiterating that the activity that we are debating is alleged to have occurred between 2018 and 2023. The Government are clear-eyed about the nature of the threat that we face from China and a range of other adversaries when it comes to defending our national security. I pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who serve in our intelligence services. I am proud that this Government are investing record amounts in supporting the incredible work that they do. We owe them a debt of gratitude; they are heroes of our nation.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are well aware that a number of Members were briefed 10 days in advance of the arrest of Chris Cash, because the last Government deemed that Members deserved to know if they were being spied on. The current Government clearly do not agree. Given your responsibility for Members’ security, and how hard you work to keep them safe, were you at least briefed a year ago, when these reports were shared with the Government?
The answer is no; I have not been briefed, even as of today.
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.
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.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5434242.