Foreign Interference in UK Politics
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 9 Jul 2026 · 50 speeches · Official Report
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 6 July.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about foreign interference in UK politics.
Genuinely free and fair elections are the bedrock of our sovereignty. They are how our people in this country choose their Government and hold power to account. But we have seen our democracy under attack, whether it is foreign actors trying to find ways to divide us from each other and rip communities apart, funding divisive political actors here in the UK or through misinformation and disinformation online, or public figures refusing to play by the rules and eroding trust by being either unwilling or incapable of being honest and transparent about the support they receive.
No Labour Government will allow our democratic process to be distorted by foreign interference, hostile states or malign actors here in the UK seeking to distort our politics. That is why, to complement the stringent steps that we are already taking to protect our democracy in the Representation of the People Bill, the Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment. Today, I am pleased to be publishing the Government’s full response, accepting all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations.
The UK already has a strong framework to detect, deter and disrupt foreign interference, but hostile actors adapt and so must we. We will now take forward a programme of reform to strengthen our defences and restore public confidence. In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. As the House was told previously, we will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics.
Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, I am announcing that we will also introduce a minimum residency period. An overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted. To ensure that there is no opportunity for individuals to circumvent the new regime, once the measures come into force, the minimum residency period will apply retrospectively from the date of our original announcement on 25 March.
We recognise that similar risks exist with other electors who have recently lived abroad but were not registered as overseas electors. We will apply the same cap and minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after today and was not previously an overseas elector. To ensure that these individuals cannot circumvent the rules before a commencement, a modified cap will apply retrospectively. An annual cap of £100,000 per recipient will apply to donations that they make between today and the date of commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions that they enter into from today. On commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors.
As previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency. Until the regulatory environment is robust enough, donations in cryptocurrency should not be a route for money to be channelled into British politics.
Mr Rycroft outlined clearly the ways in which he believes the corporate donations provisions in the Representation of the People Bill can be tightened. Having carefully considered his reasoning, we will amend the corporate donation test so that it is based on post-tax profits, rather than revenue measured over five years. No corporate donor should be able to put more into UK politics than it has made in post-tax profits. That makes it clear that corporate political donations must be rooted in genuine UK-based economic activity, closing a potential loophole that our adversaries might exploit.
To ensure that our reforms to the political finance framework are robust and enforceable, we will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified threshold. We will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the declaration, including an appropriate threshold.
Mr Rycroft sets out the positive impact that the new ‘know your donor’ rules will have in helping to ensure that parties act in the public interest. He also sets out his concerns about the rigour of those rules. We will strengthen the ‘know your donor’ requirements in the Bill, adding location as a risk factor in parties’ due diligence around donations.
We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Mr Rycroft highlights significant risks in the current rules around these donations, as well as a lack of
‘transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending’.
We will therefore require candidates to declare that donations used to fund campaigning prior to formally becoming a candidate are from permissible sources. Donations made during that period above £2,230 will need to be declared.
We will give the Electoral Commission stronger tools to do its job. Mr Rycroft reports that
‘basic transparency requirements are essential to sustaining public trust’,
and that there is currently
‘unnecessary inhibition on the enforcement powers of the Commission’.
We agree. We will therefore provide a clear statutory basis for standardised political finance reporting that will make the data easier to compare, scrutinise and enforce. We will create a broad, reciprocal information-sharing gateway, allowing the commission to work more effectively with relevant public authorities. We will extend the commission’s powers to require information outside a formal investigation, which means earlier scrutiny, faster action and stronger enforcement where risks emerge. These reforms will give the regulator the powers needed to protect the integrity of political finance.
We will strengthen enforcement. The most serious breaches of electoral law, especially involving foreign interference, must be met with the right expertise and capacity. Mr Rycroft concludes that the ‘robustness’ of the current enforcement arrangements require
‘the police apparatus … to hold the requisite expertise and to be adequately resourced … to deal with the complex instances of criminal breach of electoral law’.
We will therefore work across Government and with policing partners to strengthen and formalise national capability in this area. We also accept that criminal thresholds and sentencing must provide a credible deterrent. We will work at pace with law enforcement, the Electoral Commission, prosecuting authorities, devolved Governments and political parties to develop proposals.
We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment, including hostile state activity online. Mr Rycroft makes important points concerning the dramatic change in recent years to the context in which our democratic process functions, and how this has
‘created new opportunities for malign foreign influence’,
regardless of whether money is changing hands in the UK. We will never stop working to counter interference in our democracy. As information threats continue to evolve, we are taking robust action to tackle misinformation and disinformation, improving transparency in online political campaigning, building resilience to information manipulation, and supporting those at the very heart of our democratic system to identify and respond to emerging threats. We will also consider further reforms relating to online political advertising, digital imprints, lobbying transparency, and other routes through which foreign money may seek to influence our politics. That will include looking at the adequacy of the current regulated period, and taking forward work on artificial intelligence and algorithms.
Finally, we accept the need for clear leadership and stronger co-ordination across Whitehall. Following Mr Rycroft’s recommendation, the Cabinet Secretary has given the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy.
This is a serious and substantial package of reforms that will bring more transparency to political finance, tighten donation rules and strengthen enforcement. This response shows the Government acting now where action is needed. This is a Government who are prepared to do the long-term work to keep our system secure. I thank Philip Rycroft for his important work. The Government will now move swiftly to implement his recommendations. The people of the UK must know that their elections are free, fair, and protected from foreign interference. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement and thank Philip Rycroft for his thorough review. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures to tackle foreign interference in our democracy and recognise the value of Philip Rycroft’s review. However, an independent review is not a substitute for ministerial engagement with political parties where recommendations affect the rules by which political parties compete with one another. The Government have traditionally sought broad political agreement before legislating. The threats posed by hostile states are real and growing, so protecting the integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our elections. Every political party represented in this House has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are robustly addressed. However, we remain concerned about both the process the Government have adopted and aspects of the proposals now being taken forward. As my noble friend Lady Finn said during last week’s debate, there is a simple constitutional principle at stake. The rules governing political finance are not ordinary legislation; they are the rules by which political parties compete with one another. Governments are therefore the trustees of those rules, not their proprietors. The reason why that convention exists is straightforward: Governments should not...
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to ask the Minister to remind us what consultation the previous Conservative Government carried out with either his party or mine over, for example, changing the electoral system for elections of mayors or expense limits for general elections. Instead, to go to the heart of the matter, these Benches very much share the concerns set out in the Rycroft review about the risk of foreign money influencing, or even corrupting, our politics. We therefore broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the report. However, I have some concerns about the intended speed of implementation, some of the loopholes that will remain, and one particular issue that is not mentioned in the Government’s response, which I suspect the Minister can successfully predict. I turn first to the intended pace of implementation. On recommendation 4, regarding non-party campaigners and related issues, the Government have said they will “commit to consultation and further work”. They are not even committing to action on that one. On recommendation 14, on internet advertising, the Government have promised “proposals in due course”. On recommendation 16, on think tanks and associated issues, the Government’s commitment is that they will “consider opportunities for further work”. I fear that you can almost hear the wheels of Whitehall grinding to a halt as you consider that phrase. I hope the Minister can set out clear timelines for the Government’s intended...
My Lords, I will come to that question at the end, if I may. The Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment and announced immediate plans to accept two recommendations responding to urgent risks. A week ago, in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Government would publish their response very soon, and I am delighted to say I was right. They have now published their full response and, as noble Lords know, the Government have accepted all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. I will come to the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made in a moment. I welcome the support-I would not say it is qualified support-from all the Benches opposite for Rycroft and our acceptance of the recommendations. In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. I should note, because this is an important point that the noble Baroness made, that the Minister will be writing to political parties to set out these measures in much more detail, and that letter will be publicly available on GOV.UK. I will come to the question of discussions and engagement in a moment. We will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. It is materially more complex to trace the true source of political...
My Lords, before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know that the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Minister-that means questions, not speeches or statements.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, referred to me. In opening, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his seat, since I notified him that I intended to quote him. On 15 July 2022, he said: “I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister”- how perceptive- “they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law, which desperately needs some revamping ”.-[ Official Report , 15/7/22; col. 1709.] I now move on to the question of implementing changes in this particular field. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has already made comments about this. I know that the Minister is an old Alleynian-a product of Dulwich College. There is another product of Dulwich College who may have a certain influence on the changes that are necessary in this field. It is because of the events that we are witnessing and the investigations that are being undertaken by the Ethics and Integrity Commission that I ask the Government: please, can we not force through amendments to the Bill now, when we may be in the position in the imminent future of having yet more changes necessary to the legislation?
I am indeed a product of Dulwich College, which only goes to show that it is not the school’s fault. I am sorry to say that I am older than Nigel Farage, and I am tempted to make jokes about bins and recycling-but I will not, because the Chief Whip will tell me off. On the substantive point, we understand that there is a lot going on. These are not matters for me; they are matters for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. We hear what the noble Lord says about the need not to keep double-dipping on this, so we will watch the situation carefully, but I should not comment on individual cases, as I know he understands.
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Rycroft report. The Statement says: “We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment”. Recommendation 16 specifically talks about think tanks. The other night, in a committee room upstairs, I listened to a number of experts on foreign interference talking about foreign Governments funnelling money through think tanks in Britain to influence our political debates, including not only the Russian Government but the last Hungarian Government. I therefore urge the Government to consider including those forms of indirect political influence to shape the political debate-the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, may add that PR firms are also engaged in this-as part of what we need to control, and to insist on transparency, at the very least, in where the money is coming from. I suggest that we should have a Defending Democracy Taskforce that reports to Parliament about what it is defending and what the threats are, so as to inform and alert us all to where we are. I was the leader on our Benches for the 2022 Bill. I have been trying to recall the consultations that the then Conservative Government had with other parties. I must have forgotten that they took place. I was unaware that there was any form of constitutional convention. I will welcome the paper from the Conservative Benches about the constitutional convention: when it was shaped and how the Conservative Government previously...
I do not have anything to add on the noble Lord’s final point, other than that it sounds a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question to me. On the question about think tanks and so on, I have already said how the principle behind the Bill is that we are seeking to prevent foreign interference in our democracy. As we go through the process with the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. At the moment we are focused on political parties, as I have said, but we recognise the wider landscape he draws, and we will cleave to the principle I have set out.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to give the Electoral Commission more investigatory powers, including the power to require information from third parties, as the Rycroft review recommended. The devil will be in the detail on that. Other regulators have extensive powers to require information from third parties, to search premises, to require third parties to attend for interviews, and so on, which are enforceable by criminal penalties. What powers are envisaged to be given to the Electoral Commission to require information from third parties and how will they be enforced?
The noble Lord raises a very important point in relation to information sharing. To address the asymmetry identified in the Rycroft review of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill, we will amend the Bill to establish a broad reciprocal statutory gateway for information sharing. Importantly, we will also extend the commission’s power to require disclosure of information outside of a formal investigation, enabling a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement. On criminal liabilities, one of the things that we want to achieve in the Bill is for these matters to be dealt with, as far as possible, by the Electoral Commission, as there are other pressures in relation to police time, and so on. We are decriminalising some minor offences in the Bill, as I think the noble Lord knows, but we do not want to reduce the liability in relation to serious matters.
My Lords, I have just returned from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, where I spent the last five days on behalf of the House. One of the issues that came up was that what is happening here is not unique to us. A number of countries across Europe-not least Armenia, Hungary recently, and Moldova-are suffering the same issue of money coming in, possibly from Moscow and elsewhere. A considerable amount of time and effort is being spent by people on thinking of ways to tighten up the rules and make things more effective. Enforcement has been touched upon. I may have mentioned this last week when it came up, but things have changed since then. Suppose that Count Binface was the recipient of several hundred thousand pounds from some foreign donation and was to win that by-election in Clacton. Many might like to see him win, but that is another matter for another time and another place. What would be the ability to enforce against him? He would be the successful Member of Parliament. Does the Representation of the People Bill, as drafted, have the teeth to remove that Member of Parliament? The Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not properly cover this. Can the Minister give some advice or think carefully about how we are going to deal with this problem? Maybe he could write to me or meet me for a discussion.
I already have a date to meet the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, so we can certainly pick this up then. These potential breaches and allegations are matters for the Electoral Commission. It is our job to empower it to deal with them. I am sure that we will debate the issues he raises at some length in Committee when the Bill comes before the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is too nice to have gone through everything that the Tories did without involving us, but one of the things they did was to bring in the requirement for ID for people casting a vote. However, those people living abroad, although they extended the vote to them, do not have to produce their ID; they vote by post. I am sorry to bring this to my noble friend again but, more importantly, although I approve what Rycroft did in bringing in a cap, it is £100,000 per year per person. A couple living abroad who may not have lived here for 40 years can do £1 million between them over a Parliament. My noble friend cannot say that he agrees with me, but can he at least say that he is sympathetic, hears what I say and that it will be taken into account in future discussions?
My noble friend Lady Hayter will have to read my body language, I am afraid. I will not be drawn. Her arithmetic is correct. If those patterns emerge, I go back to the principle that we want to stop foreign interference in our politics. If we see these rules being manipulated, as she suggests might be the case, we will respond to that. On voter ID, as she knows, the Bill does contain some provisions to make it easier for people. We will come back to those in Committee, I am sure.
On procedure, I suspect that on the Opposition Front Bench the lady doth protest too much, judging by what I hear about the precedents. It is rather a good thing that there is a vehicle, in the Representation of the People Bill, ready for the addition of the amendments that the Government are making, picking up from the Rycroft report. I thought that the report was very good and that the Government’s answers were generally good. My concern is over penalties. There is a risk, given the very large amounts of money that are flying about and the penalties being exiguous, of them simply being seen as a cost of business. I am rather sorry that on the recommendation that sentencing should be reviewed, the response is: “Significant changes to criminal thresholds and sentencing length require a longer process of analysis and consultation than is possible to deliver in the timeframes of the RoPB”. I am not sure why that should be so. Is the Minister sure that it is not possible to tighten up penalties in this Bill?
I am starting to feel the need to defend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but will not fall into that temptation. On enforcement, one point that I should perhaps have made and will make now is that we are increasing the fining powers of the Electoral Commission. I know that is not quite the point that the noble Lord is making but it is precisely for the point that he makes. The current cap on fines from the Electoral Commission is £20,000, which could be seen as the cost of business for people and businesses richer than I am. We are raising that to £500,000. On the point about criminal sanctions, we are in active discussions with the Ministry of Justice. As the noble Lord rightly acknowledged, we want to do what we can and not go at the pace of the slowest recommendation. We will come back to that point because the recommendation from Philip Rycroft gives us a very clear direction of travel.
My Lords, I welcome this very important review and that the Government are accepting all the recommendations. I am most concerned about the area pertaining to recommendation 13, on what is happening online in the social media space. The recommendation is that combating “hostile state online interference” requires “clear lead accountability at ministerial and senior official level … with resources commensurate to the challenge”. Since this review was undertaken, an important report came out in the last month from the Social Market Foundation. It found that around by-elections and elections online, we are seeing 26 times more misinformation and disinformation on social media. That review looked specifically at what was happening on Facebook. In that context, I urge the Government to press the National Crime Agency to undertake a full investigation into who is funding British content creators who are posting daily toxic content that is deliberately anti-democratic, divisive and highly damaging to our politics.
I thank the noble Baroness for that question and I pay tribute to her long-standing work in this area. It is important that I set this out carefully, so I hope she will forgive me if I read out the precise answer. The Online Safety Act framework requires in-scope services to tackle illegal content where it amounts to a criminal offence. In an election context, for example, this includes incitement to violence, undue influence, foreign interference, false communications and false statements about a candidate’s character. Those are important powers, but we recognise-as I have already said on the question on adverts that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised-that today’s technological and online environment shifts and develops rapidly. That is why we are working with colleagues across government-I am very actively engaged in this myself, including with Ministers in DSIT and the Home Office-to continue to take steps to address these challenges. Your Lordships do not need me to tell them that we need to keep a close eye on this space.
My Lords, I will take the Minister back to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Haywood, who asked about the Minister’s fellow Old Alleynian, the coming by-election and the legal processes, and said that maybe we should hold off on the legislation until we have seen that process play out. I think I understood the Minister to say that he understood the argument and to “watch this space”, or words to that effect. Is it really proper for us to pass legislation against, or at least inspired by, a specific individual? Is not the worst kind of law that which is designed to frustrate a political opponent? Should we not be very careful, in this House particularly, of that kind of talk and legislation when the party in question, Reform UK bizarrely, despite its share of the vote at the last election, lacks any representation in this Chamber?
I never say “watch this space”-it is not my style-but the serious point that the noble Lord makes is absolutely right. Of course we should not allow individual cases of that sort. This is a properly regulated space. We are strengthening that regulation. Many of these matters, particularly in relation to the other place, are for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the authorities in the other place. I would not seek to interfere with that in any way, but we will all read the papers, I am sure.
What are the Minister’s thoughts on the past intervention of President Obama in the British referendum, which rather backfired, and what would he think if leading Republican politicians today, for example, get energetically behind Rupert Lowe’s party?
I do not feel qualified to comment on the behaviour or attitudes of the leaders of the Republicans or other right-wing parties in the US.