UK MPs press for answers over alleged access to their records as minister confirms FBI inquiry
LONDON, 10 November 2026. Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, asked the House of Commons on Tuesday whether the phone records and financial information of British parliamentarians previously sanctioned by Beijing had fallen into other hands. Security Minister Dan Jarvis confirmed that an FBI investigation was continuing and that a warrant remained active through INTERPOL. He did not confirm that anyone had obtained the records or say when the British government first learnt of the allegations. House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
The urgent question began at 3.47 pm London time. Two days earlier, The Mail on Sunday had reported that a British businessman approached a private investigations firm about compiling information on seven UK parliamentarians. Duncan Smith told MPs that the report had left him concerned for his family, including a relative who lives abroad. If the authorities believed the parliamentarians might have been targeted, he wanted to know why he had learnt of it from a newspaper. House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November The Mail on Sunday, 8 November, including the company’s response (reproduced)
What the firm was asked to find
The Mail on Sunday said it had seen messages between businessman John Miller and Keith Hunter, a former Metropolitan Police detective. In the paper’s account, Miller approached Hunter’s firm, Animus Associates, about compiling background material. The exchange concerned the subjects’ credibility and whether the brief would extend to family and business life. Miller later told Hunter that another team had supplied financial and phone records and that the commission was closed. The claim about a second team comes from a message attributed to Miller. The Mail on Sunday, 8 November, including the company’s response (reproduced) House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
Animus told the newspaper that its dealings with Miller were brief. It said it refused to proceed, returned the money it had received and ended the relationship when it became clear that he wanted work beyond lawful open-source research. The paper described short biographies drawn from public material at the proposal stage. It did not suggest that the firm knew of a link between its client and the Chinese state or had unlawfully obtained phone or banking information. The Mail on Sunday, 8 November, including the company’s response (reproduced)
For those named, the distinction matters. An approach to an investigations firm, a message saying a client already has records and a verified disclosure of someone’s actual data are three claims requiring different evidence. The published account did not exhibit call logs or financial records that could be checked against those of the individuals concerned. Jarvis put the alleged activity described in the press between 2018 and 2023. He did not identify that period as the duration of a verified breach. The Mail on Sunday, 8 November, including the company’s response (reproduced) House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
Why the same seven names feature in the report
The seven shared a documented history. On 26 March 2021 China’s foreign ministry announced sanctions on nine British individuals and four entities. Its list included Duncan Smith, Tom Tugendhat, Neil O’Brien, Tim Loughton and Nusrat Ghani, as well as two peers, Lord Alton and Baroness Kennedy. These were the seven parliamentarians named in the newspaper report. Beijing said that Britain’s own sanctions on Chinese officials and an entity over Xinjiang rested on false claims and interfered in China’s internal affairs. The British foreign secretary defended those who had spoken about Xinjiang. The Mail on Sunday, 8 November, including the company’s response (reproduced) Chinese foreign ministry, sanctions statement of 26 March 2021 UK foreign secretary, statement on sanctions, 26 March 2021
The measures announced in 2021 included restrictions on entry to mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao for the individuals concerned and their immediate families, as well as restrictions on dealings with the listed parties. In a written answer to the Lords this February, the Foreign Office said that Xi Jinping had told the British prime minister that all serving parliamentarians were free to travel to China. Britain was still seeking clarity about the implications for other sanctioned people. The description of the seven as sanctioned parliamentarians refers to the 2021 list. Their individual circumstances in 2026 may differ. Chinese foreign ministry, sanctions statement of 26 March 2021 UK Foreign Office, written answer of 27 February 2026
As of the evening of 10 November in London, Voice of Liberation had found no published statement from the Chinese embassy in the UK addressing that day’s urgent question or these parliamentarians’ records specifically. The 2021 statement identifies who announced the sanctions, who was listed and Beijing’s stated reasons. It does not discuss the private investigations firm or establish who commissioned the work described in the press. Chinese embassy in London, public statements Chinese foreign ministry, sanctions statement of 26 March 2021 House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
What the US charges establish
Miller had appeared in public US criminal proceedings before he was named in the British press. In April 2025, federal prosecutors in the Central District of California announced that Serbian authorities had arrested John Miller, a British citizen, and Cui Guanghai, a Chinese citizen, at the United States’ request. The following month, the US Department of Justice announced indictments returned by separate grand juries in Los Angeles and Milwaukee. The arrests and indictments are documented procedural facts. The allegations are matters for a court to determine. US Attorney’s Office, arrests in Serbia US Department of Justice, charges in Los Angeles and Milwaukee
The California case concerns an artist living in the United States who publicly criticised Xi Jinping. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants sought to prevent him protesting during the 2023 APEC summit in San Francisco, and arranged further harassment when he prepared to display new work in 2025. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty subsequently interviewed the artist. He described learning about threats and his fears for his safety after the two men disappeared. His first-hand account concerns his experiences in the United States. US Department of Justice, charges in Los Angeles and Milwaukee Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, court reporting and artist interview
The Wisconsin proceedings concern alleged violations of US arms export controls and smuggling. In September 2025 the High Court in Belgrade confirmed to reporters that both men had disappeared from house arrest and that warrants had been issued. Jarvis referred on Tuesday to an active warrant through INTERPOL without releasing the document. INTERPOL explains that even a Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally arrest a person under national law pending proceedings such as extradition. Criminal liability is determined separately by a court. US Department of Justice, charges in Los Angeles and Milwaukee Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, court reporting and artist interview INTERPOL, purpose and legal effect of Red Notices
Those proceedings help explain why British MPs asked their security minister about an American investigation. The allegations summarised by the US Justice Department concern harassment of a US resident in California and exports in the Wisconsin case. Neither summary establishes that records belonging to the seven UK parliamentarians were stolen. Jarvis did not specify how far the FBI investigation to which he referred extended to the information newly reported in Britain. US Department of Justice, charges in Los Angeles and Milwaukee House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November The Mail on Sunday, 8 November, including the company’s response (reproduced)
Who tells someone they may be at risk?
The debate moved from who might have acquired records to who should notify the people concerned. Duncan Smith wanted an individual, private briefing about his possible exposure. Liberal Democrat MP Max Wilkinson asked when ministers and officials had first learnt of the reported information and whether the notification process would be reviewed. For a parliamentarian who must still take constituents’ calls and stay in touch with family, the timing of a warning has immediate practical consequences. House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November UK Home Office, public-life security review, 12 October
Jarvis said his officials were available to meet affected parliamentarians. The government worked with the Speaker, parliamentary authorities, police and intelligence partners to provide briefings where appropriate, he said. He declined to discuss operations on the floor of the House, citing the potential impact on investigations or subsequent proceedings. Britain has an action plan on political interference and espionage. The National Cyber Security Centre and National Protective Security Authority also advise members of both Houses and their offices. MPs were asking who decides that a particular individual needs a private warning in addition to general advice. House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November UK Home Office, action plan on political interference and espionage
Labour MP Emily Darlington approached the question from a different angle. She raised the risk of intimidation in Britain alongside the treatment of Hong Kong democracy campaigners and asked whether the government would summon China’s ambassador. Jarvis said intimidation of China’s critics in the UK was unacceptable and expressed concern about Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai. He did not announce a diplomatic summons. On the narrower matter of the parliamentarians’ records, the exchange left unanswered what information the government could share with those concerned. House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November Joint Committee on Human Rights, Transnational repression in the UK
A review of protective security was already under way. On 12 October the Home Office appointed Sir Stephen Lovegrove to examine how resources for those in public life are used and whether decisions about threats can be more consistent. Dedicated police support was to extend to peers, former MPs and certain party leaders outside Parliament, among others. The review’s remit explicitly excludes individual cases. Under those arrangements, reviewing the system and explaining a particular person’s exposure are separate tasks. UK Home Office, public-life security review, 12 October
For dissidents and diaspora communities in Britain, an explanation of an individual threat can also affect a person’s willingness to speak publicly. The UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights recorded evidence in 2025 of relatives being questioned in their home country after someone attended a demonstration in Britain. Some people trying to report incidents were passed between departments unfamiliar with transnational repression. Others said they had been advised to curtail political activity. The committee called for wider training for frontline police and for guidance in languages used by the communities concerned. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Transnational repression in the UK House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
That evidence puts Duncan Smith’s concern for his family in context. It does not establish a threat to any particular relative. A parliamentarian can ask a minister for an answer on the floor of the House. Someone reporting an incident in the community may first have to explain why events in two countries could be connected. The committee recommended training officers to recognise early warnings involving relatives abroad and regularly testing official guidance with the people expected to use it. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Transnational repression in the UK House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
By the end of Tuesday’s exchange, one practical offer was on the record. Jarvis had made officials available for private meetings at which parliamentarians could ask about their individual circumstances. His public answers left open whether authentic records existed, who might have held them and whether a British authority was already in a position to brief the individuals concerned. House of Commons, urgent question, 10 November
Sources
Comments