How are speeches selected and edited?
- Quotes and speeches are selected on the basis of their relevance and notability - whether they bring new information to a debate, are rhetorically interesting, or whether they are interesting in the context of their speaker.
- Omissions to speeches are noted by ellipses (...) but are otherwise as recorded in Hansard.
- Not all speeches are selected here.
- AI is used to draft articles summarising Parliamentary debates. All summaries are reviewed and edited manually before publication. You can read the script used to generate the summaries.
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
Edited by Peter Warrington, 2026-07-11 Speeches following the government's response to the Rycroft review into foreign financial influence in British democracy.The UK Government has accepted all recommendations of the Rycroft review to combat foreign financial influence, introducing a £100,000 cap on overseas donations, a cryptocurrency donation moratorium, and a new “post-tax profits” test for corporate donors.
Key Quotes:
“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.” - Samantha Dixon (Labour)
“If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow… Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.” - Paul Holmes (Conservative)
“Surely any crypto billionaire coming from, say, Thailand to a farmhouse in Hampshire, who has developed a interest in our country, would also want to help pay for our schools, our roads and our hospitals. My predecessor in 1848 presented to this place the huge Chartist petition calling for more democracy, and with the cry, ‘No taxation without representation!’ I say this: ‘No outsize representation without paying your blinking taxes!’” - Emily Thornberry (Labour)
“We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon. Member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] used a private audience with the Governor of the Bank of England to lobby against a policy that could cost that same billionaire dearly. It should not be this easy to pump money into British politics from the other side of the planet.” - Lloyd Hatton (Labour)
“Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024…” - Richard Tice (Reform)
“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.” - Samantha Dixon (Labour)
“People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy.” - Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat)
“Billionaires, oligarchs and all those who wish to subvert our democracy believe that they are untouchable… Given that the ex-leader of Reform in Wales is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking Russian money during his time as an MEP, will the Minister ensure that anyone found guilty of undermining the integrity of our democracy is dealt with with the same severity?” - Chris Law (SNP)
“I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that there is not an outright ban on cryptocurrency donations. I cannot foresee us ever arriving at a place where the regulation is robust enough that it would be safe for cryptocurrency donations to proceed, so I would like to understand why the Minister is not proceeding with an outright ban.” - Liam Byrne (Labour)
“I welcome that the Government have accepted all of the Rycroft review’s recommendations, but as Rycroft himself noted, his terms of reference did not enable him to look at all sources of distortion in our democracy. It does not just come from abroad. In a democracy, every voter’s voice should count equally, but it is clear that billionaires are buying influence. Why will the Minister not set a cap on all donations…” - Dr Ellie Chowns (Green)
House of Commons Foreign Interference Debate - July 6th 2026
The House of Commons met on Monday 6th July 2026 to hear a statement from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Samantha Dixon (Labour):
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.
…
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.
…
This is a serious and substantial package of reforms that will bring more transparency to political finance, tighten donation rules and strengthen enforcement. … 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.
Responding on behalf of the Official Opposition, the Shadow Minister, Paul Holmes (Conservative), raised concerns about the lack of consultation:
The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, While we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review.
First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. … If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow.
…
Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row… The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.
Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat) welcomed the proposals but pushed for further restrictions on foreign influence:
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. … We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. … We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy.
…
Former Cabinet Minister Liam Byrne (Labour) urged the Government to enforce an outright ban on cryptocurrency donations:
I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that there is not an outright ban on cryptocurrency donations. I cannot foresee us ever arriving at a place where the regulation is robust enough that it would be safe for cryptocurrency donations to proceed, so I would like to understand why the Minister is not proceeding with an outright ban. The point about having safeguards on the algorithmic amplification of hate during election campaigns is crucial. …
The former Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry (Labour), focused on wealthy donors returning to the UK to circumvent limits:
As a contributor to the Rycroft review—I just asked to go and see him—I very much welcome the reforms that have been announced. Just as we do not want companies to take the mickey and be vehicles either for dishonestly obtained funds or for foreign money into our democracy, we also have to be careful about individuals, and my question is about individuals returning to the UK. Will they be properly here—in other words, will they be here in the sense that they pay taxes? Surely any crypto billionaire coming from, say, Thailand to a farmhouse in Hampshire, who has developed a deep interest in our country, would also want to help pay for our schools, our roads and our hospitals. My predecessor in 1848 presented to this place the huge Chartist petition calling for more democracy, and with the cry, “No taxation without representation!” I say this: “No outsize representation without paying your blinking taxes!”
The SNP MP, Chris Law (SNP), pressed the Minister on whether enforcement would be strong enough to deter wealthy subversives:
I welcome the modest measures announced today. However, Thai-based billionaire and Reform party donor Christopher Harborne has already insisted that these new rules will not stop him donating. Billionaires, oligarchs and all those who wish to subvert our democracy believe that they are untouchable, so these measures must be rigorously enforced with severe punishments for anyone found breaking them. Given that the ex-leader of Reform in Wales is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking Russian money during his time as an MEP, will the Minister ensure that anyone found guilty of undermining the integrity of our democracy is dealt with with the same severity?
The Reform UK MP, Richard Tice (Reform), accused the Government of hypocrisy over their own major donors:
Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024, or with the eight companies that have donated half a million pounds? …
The Green Party MP, Dr Ellie Chowns (Green), called for a complete cap on all domestic political donations:
I welcome that the Government have accepted all of the Rycroft review’s recommendations, but as Rycroft himself noted, his terms of reference did not enable him to look at all sources of distortion in our democracy. It does not just come from abroad. In a democracy, every voter’s voice should count equally, but it is clear that billionaires are buying influence. Why will the Minister not set a cap on all donations, so that we can eliminate the corrosive and corrupting influence of big money in our politics?
Finally, Lloyd Hatton (Labour) raised concerns about the financial interests of Nigel Farage and the potential for wealthy donors to bypass the cap:
I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon. Member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] used a private audience with the Governor of the Bank of England to lobby against a policy that could cost that same billionaire dearly. It should not be this easy to pump money into British politics from the other side of the planet. While I welcome the measures announced today regarding the overseas donation cap, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—for me and for my constituents—that foreign-based donors will not be able to dart in and out of the country as they choose to avoid the new cap on foreign donations.