Political Donations

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 707189 relating to the rules for political donations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I begin by thanking Mr Jeremy Stone, who is here today, for starting this petition, and congratulate him on gathering more than 140,000 signatures, which is a fantastic feat. The petition, titled “Tighten the rules on political donations”, states:

“We want the government to…Remove loopholes that allow wealthy foreign individuals to make donations into UK political parties (e.g. by funnelling through UK registered companies)…Cap all donations to a reasonable amount…Review limits on the fines that can be levied for breaking the rules…We think that ultra-rich individuals or foreign state actors should not be able to use their money to give unfair advantage to a political party in order to further their own agenda.”

I think that is a principle that all of us here will agree with—that foreign interference through donations has no place in British elections or politics, and that democracy cannot be for sale.

I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite the union and I have received donations from both Unite and the Communications Workers Union, the full details of which are freely available on my MP profile on the UK Parliament website. Functions like this mean that we, as MPs, can be constantly transparent and honest to our constituents about where money is flowing in politics. As a member of a political party, I am very aware of how much parties rely on donations; however, donations can become concerning when their origins are unclear and the public cannot be sure whether some foreign interference, or any other suspicious dealings, may have slipped through the cracks in the rules.

About a month ago, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) introduced a similar debate on political finance rules, which covered a lot of the points that I am sure will be mentioned again today. He similarly began by declaring his interest of being a member of a political party, a sentiment that many others here will echo. He used his speech to highlight Transparency International’s research on questionable sources of donations.

In particular, the group found that almost £1 in every £10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some £13 million comes from donors who are alleged, or proven, to be intermediaries for foreign funds or hidden sources; £10.9 million comes from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions that they have made; and £4.6 million comes from foreign Governments, Parliaments and regime-linked groups.

Reported donations from private sources are growing, from £30.6 million in 2001 to £85 million in 2023. That is unsurprising, given that, in this period, former Governments increased campaign spending limits by 45% to be in line with inflation, meaning that the larger parties’ de facto fundraising targets rose to around £100 million in the major election years. The previous Government also increased the threshold for reporting donations by 50% in 2023, thus demonstrating how complex the system is.

Alongside that, the Elections Act 2022 constrained the independence of the Electoral Commission and banned it from prosecuting criminal offences under electoral law. The Electoral Commission said:

“The UK Government does not consider this to be an area of work we should undertake and considered it to duplicate the work of the Crown Prosecution Service…and Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland”.

Ministers can now even set the Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy priorities through their own strategy and policy statements. Transparency International said:

“This is inconsistent with international good practice, unnecessary, and fetters the Commission’s independence.”

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a very good speech. With her permission, I might just broaden the concept of a political donation, because, in many ways, it is not always quite as simple as a cheque hitting a given political party’s bank account. Whatever one thought of him—he was a great man in Scottish politics, and is no longer with us—it is a fact that Alex Salmond, for a number of years, hosted a show in his own name on RT, a Russian television channel, on which he, on a regular basis, put forward views that were not always particularly helpful to the concept of a United Kingdom. That seems to me to be a subtle way of foreign Governments influencing decisions and trying to interfere.

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I agree with his point.

At the time of the Elections Act 2022, the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, whose corresponding Department was responsible for introducing the Act, also concluded that there was no need for such statements and no evidence to justify their introduction. The recent Backbench Business Committee debate on political finance rules mentioned some case studies and evidence from previous elections of overseas donations. For example, the 2020 report of the Intelligence and Security Committee found that Russian oligarchs had used their business interests, donations to charities and political parties to influence UK affairs.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She talks about the considerable parliamentary interest in this issue; we know there is considerable interest among the public too, because of the number of signatures on Mr Stone’s petition. Is she also aware that survey evidence has indicated that over three quarters of those polled do not want foreign nationals not registered to vote here to be able to donate to our political parties? As a result, does she agree that we need to see legislative change?

[Irene Campbell]

I absolutely agree that we need to see change; my right hon. Friend makes the point very well.

More recently, as people will be aware, Elon Musk proposed to donate a large sum to Reform UK. While he could not make a personal donation, there are ways that he could get around the rules, which I will describe. The current rules on donations to political parties are defined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is based on the 1998 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, “The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom”. A lot of what I have said already demonstrates how complex this area is.

The Committee summarised the purpose of the rules by saying that

“what happens here is the concern of those who live and work here and the political parties should not be entitled to fill their coffers with donations from abroad, made by persons and corporations who have no genuine stake in the country.”

More recently, the Elections Act 2022 changed the electoral rules, removing the 15-year limit on the voting rights of British citizens living overseas to vote in UK parliamentary elections, and allowing them to register on the electoral roll and donate to political parties without a time limit.

To be clear, under current UK electoral law, foreign donations are banned as they are not a “permissible source.” Permissible sources include individuals on the UK electoral register, UK registered companies, trade unions, unincorporated associations and limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. It is worth noting that, under the rules, parties can accept donations or loans with no upper limit, as long as they come from one of those permissible sources. Donations are defined as

“money, goods or services given to a party without charge or on non-commercial terms, with a value of over £500.”

There are additional rules around the thresholds for party headquarters and local accounting, but I will not go into detail because they are not straightforward.

There are ways for foreign individuals to get around those rules. For example, a multinational corporation owned by a foreign national could legally donate to UK political parties. Additionally, unincorporated associations, which are permissible donors, do not have to conduct permissibility checks on their own donors, leading to a lack of transparency in their donations.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The hon. Member made an interesting point about the role of companies, and specifically referred to Reform UK. Will she join me in putting on the record that Reform UK is not a political party like most of ours are, but in fact a limited company registered at Companies House, with the primary shareholder being the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? Does she agree that, where necessary, any change to legislation needs to incorporate such risk factors?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with the statement the hon. Member has just made.

The Electoral Commission, the independent regulator for the rules, has said that, at present, donations can be made using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. There are variable monetary penalties from the Electoral Commission for breaking the rules, which are outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. These can be between £250 and £20,000, depending on the severity of the breach, which is another area that the petition seeks to address.

There are many electoral reform recommendations from independent bodies that address some of the concerns in this petition. In relation to fines for breaking the rules, the 2021 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended reviewing the maximum fines that can be issued for breaking electoral rules, saying that the maximum fine the Electoral Commission may impose

“should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher”.

The Electoral Commission supports that, saying in 2020:

“The Scottish Parliament recently raised the maximum fine to £500,000 for Scottish referendums, and we believe this would be a reasonable benchmark for the maximum fine in relation to other parts of the UK’s political finance regulations”.

Additionally, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommends that political parties introduce caps on donations. It said:

“A cap of £10,000 should be placed on donations to a political party or regulated donee from any individual or organisation in any year.”

Similarly, Australia’s new electoral reform Act imposed caps on political donations and electoral expenditure, after recent elections where a multimillionaire donated 117 million Australian dollars to a political party.

Both bodies have also addressed the loopholes that allow possible donations from foreign parties. In particular, the Electoral Commission said last year that parties and campaigners should

“only accept donations from companies that have made enough money in the UK to fund…their donation.”

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

A 2020 report from Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found:

“Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties”.

It is really important that we close these loopholes so that we are not at risk of Russian interference.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. To further close loopholes that allow foreign interference, the Committee on Standards in Public Life added that the Government

“should legislate to ban foreign organisations or individuals from buying campaign advertising in the UK.”

As public office holders, we are all beholden to the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. To dedicate ourselves to these principles, we must ensure that there is no question about the transparency and lawfulness of the donations that we receive. Any rules regarding electoral donations must reflect and represent those principles, which we hold dear.

The Labour manifesto promised to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations”.

In December, the Prime Minister’s spokesman confirmed that the Government are committed to

“strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”

Regarding the commitment to reviewing the rules on political donations, he said there will be a

“relevant update in due course.”

In her response to the debate in March, the Minister agreed that foreign money has no place in the UK electoral system, and that the current rules do not provide strong safeguards. She also made clear the crucial role that the Electoral Commission has, and the possibility that its roles and responsibilities may change.

There is much evidence and many policy interventions to be considered before the Government’s approach to electoral reform is published. However, now is the time for robust legislation that works. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members who wish to speak that they should bob, and they need to have been here from the beginning of the debate. Interventions—should Members take them—are meant to be just that: short and relevant to the points being made.

I point out to Members that if you mention a current Member by constituency, you need to have formally informed them beforehand, so that they will know they have been mentioned. I call Jamie Stone, Chair of the Petitions Committee.

16:44

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I do not want to add much to what I said in my intervention. This is a very dangerous principle. I have people saying to me in the street, “It’s getting like America—you can buy political results, politicians and policies.” This strikes me as fundamentally dangerous. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments, and we pride ourselves on the way we do democracy in this country. Every time such things are said to me, I feel that another little brick has been taken out of the edifice of what we do.

As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I thank the petitioners for bringing forward the petition, which expresses what an awful lot of people out there think. The very fact that the Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, gets the honour of a Government reply each time we have a petitions debate strikes me as a very good thing indeed.

I will leave my comments there. As I said in my intervention, there are more subtle ways of influencing politics in any country than a cheque or cash in the bank. We need to be constantly vigilant.

16:45

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate.

The Labour manifesto pledged to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”

I am pleased that these important proposals are being developed. Both today’s debate and the 2021 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life focus on foreign money entering the UK via companies and unincorporated associations, but I urge the Government, when they develop their proposals, to go further than that.

In 2009, Lord Campbell-Savours of Allerdale, who also happens to be my father, was involved in the tortuous debates in the other place before the passing of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. He and other Members worked to secure an amendment to the Government’s proposals. That amendment meant that individuals giving or loaning more than £7,500 to a political party must be resident or ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the tax year in which the relevant donation or loan is made.

The Bill and the amendment were later given Royal Assent, but that clause, as with many other provisions of primary legislation, was subject to the development of commencement regulations. At the time, the Minister of State envisaged that secondary legislation would be completed not long after the summer of 2010. A general election interrupted that process. However, primary legislation is still in place, ready to be enacted—a quick win, one might say.

As has been said, the Conservatives enormously expanded the number of foreign residents eligible to donate to political parties in our country by removing the 15-year limit on British citizens overseas being able to vote and donate to a political party. Now, up to 3.5 million overseas residents can influence elections.

I am going to take on the baton handed to me by my father and his colleagues in the other place, some of whom are no longer with us, and urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission to take on the task of drafting the secondary legislation required to ensure that overseas residents who do not pay tax in this country are no longer allowed to influence the outcomes of elections with their money.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member may not be aware that nearly $20,000 was donated from the United States to Sinn Féin’s 2017 Assembly election campaign—representing nearly one third of Sinn Féin’s spending in that election. Those who have been so exercised by political donations here have often done nothing to close the loophole that allows huge amounts of foreign money to influence politics in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the world would it happen that someone would be paying the bills of a foreign political party, yet that is what seems to happen with Sinn Féin. Does he agree that this loophole must be closed very quickly?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The hon. Member is quite right: I was unaware of that.

Under the rules set out the amendment, and made into law, these people would still be able to vote, and could even stand for election—arguably, that would be legitimate participation—but they could not spend money to disproportionately influence the outcome of elections in a country where they do not pay tax. Who runs this place should be a matter decided by those who live and pay their way here; it is they who live with the consequences of those electoral outcomes.

16:49

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Conservative Friends of Russia, later renamed the Westminster Russia Forum, was founded in 2012 as a lobby group, posing as a think-tank, with absolutely no research published. It was founded at the Russian embassy in London by, among others, Vladimir Putin’s man in London, Sergey Nalobin, and Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. The opening was attended by Boris Johnson and his wife, Carrie. To date, the public has never had access to the group’s activities or fundraising records, but, through this group, Putin’s regime had access to Conservative MPs and, according to one of Britain’s top spies, Kremlin money changed hands to influence the Brexit campaign.

We know that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), whom I will shortly email to notify of this mention, then leader of the UK Independence party, met the former Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, which the hon. Member initially denied. We know that Arron Banks, who donated millions to the leave campaign, met the Russian ambassador at least three times. We know that event organisers for the forum were largely London-based businesses but with an interest in Russia, and that, at its peak, events drew 170 attendees. We also know that the Conservative party took millions of pounds in donations from Russian oligarchs, and accepted such donations at least as recently as March 2022, after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine and several years after its occupation of the Donbas and Crimean peninsula. The Westminster Russia Forum was disbanded shortly after the full invasion.

I consider it a matter of public interest that the full extent of the group’s activities and fundraising is published unredacted. The Liberal Democrats further call for the full, unredacted release of the Russia report to pierce the veil of secrecy of Russian influence in UK politics. We call for greater independence for the Intelligence and Security Committee to investigate Russian interference. The Conservative party declined to do so, and it is easy to imagine why. No longer should the PM have control over its membership, nor the authority to prevent publication of its reports, as Boris Johnson did with the Russia report. This is both a matter of national security and of public confidence in our politics.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I think I made myself clear: if you are going to mention a Member, you need to inform them before you mention them, not after, to give the Member the opportunity to turn up. I suggest that you inform the Member concerned as a matter of urgency, Mr Thomas, and apologise for not doing so beforehand.

16:52

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. In the interests of transparency, I would like to declare that I have received no donations from business, but I have received donations from UK citizens, including via the trade union GMB, of which I am a member, and through fundraising dinners and quizzes in my constituency, which anyone is welcome to attend.

I would like to thank Mr Stone for starting this petition and having such great success in raising the issue with the public right across the country. We cannot be complacent in protecting our democratic rights, and we must take heed of what has happened elsewhere. When the US relaxed funding laws, it changed the course of election costs. In 1990, the average cost of a successful campaign to the House of Representatives was $981,000, while a successful Senate race cost an average of $9.3 million. In 2022, after the relaxation of the political donations legislation, the average cost of a successful campaign for the House of Representatives was $3 million, while the average cost of a successful Senate campaign was $28.5 million. We cannot afford to let that happen within the UK.

Standing for Parliament is an honour and a privilege, but not only for those who can afford it or have rich friends; it is for those who come from all walks of life. One of the big loopholes that I perceive within our campaign finance rules—I hope that the Minister will consider it in fulfilling the campaign pledge in our manifesto to clean up political donations—is the rules for political party spending and the long and the short campaign. Although we have rules for the short campaign that are adhered to in the final few weeks, we do not have a consistent set of rules for the 55 months when political parties of any sort are campaigning.

The rise of online spend is much more difficult to track and understand. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, there are ways of supporting political parties that are not always about straight donations, but that can be done through algorithms and other online activity. I will not mention any particular Member, but I will mention the behaviour of two parties when it comes to donations received. We have people with backgrounds very much linked to tax havens, such as the billionaire property developer Nick Candy, who is one of the main fundraisers for the Reform party. He is also a link between the Reform party and Trump and Elon Musk. He was very clear when he told The New York Times,

“We are going to have fund-raisers all over the world, in every part of the world where there are British nationals”—

not necessarily British taxpayers. He went on:

“We will have fund-raisers in the US, in Monaco, and we will have huge fund-raisers in the UAE, where we have an expat community there who are unhappy with the amount of regulation and tax in the UK.”

To be clear, he is the UK treasurer for the Reform party. We need to close the loophole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said earlier. If someone is not a UK taxpayer, they should not be funding a political party in order to create outcomes around regulation and tax. There are other examples I could point to, and I am sure many will.

[Alex Sobel]

I am sure my hon. Friend knows of the Carlton Club, which is a private and unincorporated association with close links to the Conservative party. It has received over £200,000 in donations from companies run by wealthy Swiss, German and Russian nationals. Over the same period, since 2020, the Carlton Club has donated £312,000 to the Conservative party. Do we not need to remove the ability to use unincorporated associations to wash money that would otherwise not be able to be donated?

[Emily Darlington]

That is a very good foray into my last point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention unincorporated companies or LLCs that are not transparent about where their money comes from. I have to ask why businesses are the ones giving money in the first place. I always think: what is the reward? I understand it better when it comes from a trade union that represents millions of workers. The trade union pulls together donations. Its members are asked whether they want to donate. Under the current legislation, they are asked whether they are happy to pay their dues and make political donations. Those individuals work and pay tax here in this country. But when there is a lack of transparency and the public cannot see how much money the company is making and then donating—the Carlton Club may fit into that; I have never been there, but I hear it is pretty lavish—that is the final loophole that I ask the Minister to consider.

I end my comments there because I know that many colleagues want to speak. I ask the Minister to consider my points and take action.

16:58

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the 177 people in Bolton West who signed the petition.

Before I came to this place I dedicated more than a decade of my career to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms across the UK, India, the UAE and the US, so I have a professional imperative to speak out on cleaning up our politics, as well as a moral one. That is why I have been campaigning on the issue week in, week out since I was elected to this place in July of last year. I was pleased to attend the launch of Transparency International’s “Checks and Balances” report in the autumn of last year, along with the anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge.

Having pored over the petition data in granular detail, I know that this is one of the rare issues that cuts across north and south, blue and red, and urban and rural. We all want our politics to be clean and fair so that it can deliver the very best outcomes for our constituents. For me, that is the heart of the issue that we are discussing. Our democracy relies heavily on donations to provide funding for parties and candidates to engage with the electorate.

However, recent scandals across all major parties involving donations being linked to criminal, unknown or potentially malign foreign sources have led to some of the lowest levels of public trust that we have ever seen. Only 12% of people trust political parties, and there is a corrosive view that politicians are all in it for themselves. The issue has become so severe that I argue that the very integrity of our political system is under serious threat. Our constituents will not cast their votes if they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. Without voting, of course, they lose their stake in our politics. Who can blame them? For far too long, successive Governments have failed to act on political finance reform, leaving our system vulnerable to exploitation by those who seek to subvert our much-cherished democracy.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Electoral Commission, which has warned that significant loopholes in our political finance laws allow money of unknown origin, and potentially foreign influence, to infiltrate British politics. Independent scrutiny bodies, including the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have repeatedly warned about the risks posed by opaque political donations. That is why we desperately need what I hope will be a forthcoming elections Bill. I urge the Minister, in her response, to provide a clear timeline for that piece of legislation. We desperately need to close loopholes, empower regulators and protect our democratic institutions from foreign influence.

[Jim Shannon]

Continuing that line of thought, Northern Ireland will need to be part of such a new legislative ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must all be subject to the same rules in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree that we need to move across the entirety of the United Kingdom to clean up our politics. Time waits for no person, so we must act now. With that in mind, I would like to propose five key reforms, which I gently ask the Minister to consider.

First, and most importantly, the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption has called for “know your donor” checks, which would legally require political parties to conduct thorough checks on the source of donations. If a donor’s origins cannot be verified, that donation should be rejected outright. As a former compliance professional for more than a decade myself, I know that such checks can be proportionate and risk based, avoiding excessive administrative burdens. This approach would align with anti-money laundering practices already established in the private sector and mirror existing requirements in the charity sector. If charities must conduct due diligence on their donors, why should political parties be exempt?

Secondly, has the Minister considered reducing the donation reporting thresholds to bring more donations into light? Coupled with the “know your donor” checks, I think that would improve scrutiny and put off lower-value donations from dubious sources.

Thirdly, there is a glaring loophole around shell companies. Under current rules, companies that have never turned a profit in the UK can still donate to political parties. That is an obvious weakness for potential foreign influence, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it is permitted. The solution is simple: the Government should mandate that a UK-registered company can only donate from the UK profits that it makes. That seems like a principle we can all get behind, and it would go a long way to protecting our much-cherished democracy.

Fourthly, as we have already heard, we must address the role of unincorporated associations, which provide a potential trapdoor for dark money entering our politics. Currently, candidates are not required to verify the ultimate source of donations received through these associations, effectively creating opaque slush funds. Forcing unincorporated associations to conduct better checks on the sources of the original donations would very quickly put an end to that risk.

Fifthly, despite the current political financing laws being riddled with loopholes, they are not even enforced properly. The Tories neutered the Electoral Commission and stripped it of its independence in the Elections Act 2022. What better way to return politics to service than by equipping the commission to hold all parties, including my own, to account? We could start by increasing its capacity for deterrence, by putting up its fining powers. In this era of plutocrat donors, the current paltry fines that the Electoral Commission can impose are hardly going to put wrongdoers off. As I understand it, enhancements to the regime in that respect would not even require primary legislation.

This is an existential issue for our politics. It is not about one person, one party, one donor or even one jurisdiction. Transparency International UK has found that between 2001 and 2024, nearly £115 million in political donations came from unknown or questionable sources, with £1 in every £10 donated to political parties having an unclear origin. Reflect on that for a moment. It is simply unacceptable. The early signs are positive, and I thank the Minister for her engagement with myself and colleagues on this matter already. It demonstrates that the Government understand why today’s debate is crucial. Failing to act sends a dangerous message that British democracy is for sale; we cannot and must not allow that to happen.

17:07

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for support I have received from other unions, because trade union money is the cleanest money in politics; we know exactly where it comes from.

We all know the saying, “Money is power,” and I would hope that none of us are naive enough to think that this does not apply to the UK. If we want to create a democratic system where everyone’s vote has equal value, we need strong protections in place to prevent the very richest individuals in our society from warping our democracy. As we heard today, we are not the worst in the world. I remember a visit I took with you, Mrs Harris, on an international delegation, during which I spoke to a Member of Parliament from another country, which I will not name. We got talking about election spending limits for individual candidates. When I told them what it was in the UK, they turned to me and said, “What are you going to buy with that?” But just because we are not as bad as some does not mean that we cannot do better—and we have to do better, because public confidence in the financial transparency of our system has plummeted.

Just 15% of Brits surveyed by the Electoral Commission last year believed that spending and funding is transparent in our system. Sadly, the evidence shows that this is a problem of trust, as big money continues to have a corrosive influence on our politics. The last Government stripped the Electoral Commission of its ability to prosecute criminal offences and placed it under ministerial control—hardly impartial. As well as manoeuvring the electoral system further in their favour, the last Government quietly passed a statutory instrument to raise campaign spending limits. National election spending caps rose by 80%, and the amount of money that an individual can donate to a party without declaring who donated it rose from £7,500 to £11,180.

I am sure that there will be some Members who think that there is nothing wrong with very wealthy people putting their money behind a party that reflects their principles, but why should we not know who they are? We have to be a little more clear-sighted about the reality: first, because of the size and scale of these donations; and secondly, because if we follow the money, we notice a pattern of some people suspiciously changing teams whenever we are about to see a changing of the guard. It would be naive to suggest that large donors are doing this purely out of the goodness of their own hearts.

I was alarmed to read the recent report by Transparency International, which found that 10% of all UK political donations originate from dubious sources. That is because it suited the last Government to allow front companies, which are set up for the sole purpose of laundering money. I was unsurprised to read that two thirds of that dark money went to the Conservative party. While I am pleased that my party in government has introduced the foreign influence registration scheme, I am concerned by reports that we may have not moved further on plans to ban any foreign political donations. This should not be a left or right issue—it just has to be based on the idea that every vote is worth the same.

It goes without saying that people like the owner of the social media website that I will only ever call Twitter, who is not even registered to vote in the UK, does not own companies incorporated in the UK and invariably avoids paying his full share of tax in the UK, should not be free to throw money at our politics, but here we are. The wealthiest man in the world could conceivably shower huge sums on any party that will help him to advance his divide and rule politics, which are designed to protect his vast wealth. This exemplifies why we need to get big money out of our politics and protect it from the undue influence of the super-rich.

The Institute for Public Policy Research has recommended capping individual and corporate donations to political parties at £100,000 a year. That seems like a modest starting point. We need a crackdown on dark money entering via shell companies that have never turned a profit in the UK and through unincorporated associations with no legal requirement to disclose their funders. We should also reinstate the Electoral Commission’s ability to monitor and prosecute offences and put the resources it needs behind that—nothing hon. Members have not already heard today. I would also like to see my Government revisit the proposals to ensure that individuals donors are registered electors and that companies that donate are owned by people who live in Britain and pay their fair share of tax here. That is extremely important.

Political funding is not the only way that the very rich are able to exert undue influence. However, it is the most obvious place where we can take decisive action now. After a decade in which billionaire donors more than trebled their wealth and working people saw the biggest pay squeeze since the Napoleonic wars, we absolutely need change.

17:12

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for opening this debate, and Mr Stone, who started the petition. May I also say to the parliamentarians present that the speeches today have been excellent? I have really enjoyed listening and I thank hon. Members for that. I also thank the 235 people in Stroud who signed the petition and the many more who have emailed me about their worries regarding political donations. I have spent a lot of the last two years knocking on doors and the most common theme has been, “You’re all the same—you’re all corrupt.” The lack of trust in politics was very alarming, and it is something that parliamentarians of all parties need to be aware of.

I would like to talk briefly about two issues: the financing of political parties and lobbying. In Stroud, we were supplied with a contract by a Tory councillor for personal protective equipment that was 85% faulty. People on the frontline were left with faulty equipment. We all wonder, but do not know, why that contract was issued. Something like £93 million has been donated to political parties, and two thirds of that was donated by 19 individuals in this country. Is it fair, in a democracy, that there is so much power in the hands of so few people? That is something of which we need to be aware. As many hon. Members have said, the external foreign donations are what brought this debate to a head, because we are all extremely alarmed by stories of hundreds of millions of pounds going to certain political parties.

I will not talk for very long because we have heard so many excellent speeches, but I would first ask if we should question whether the donations system is a good one on which to run our politics in the first place. Secondly, “know your donor” checks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned, are incredibly important. We must vet donors and make sure that the money is coming from a fair place. We need to look at all overseas donors. In fact, I would say that we need to ban any overseas donors to our political parties. I also believe in a cap on any political donations, if we are going to have political donations in the first place; £100,000 seems rather generous to me—we should bring that down.

Briefly, I want to talk about the influence of lobbying. This came as a slight shock to me. I became a politician having been a medic all my life. If we ever had any influence from the pharmaceutical companies, we totally ignored that evidence, yet as politicians we allow lobbyists to come and talk to us. I was on a platform talking about obesity, and there was even someone from Sainsbury’s supermarket on the platform. Is it right that we allow people to influence our policy in that way?

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Member hits on an important point. It is surely up to us all to judge the value of what we are told by any particular lobbyist. We listen to constituents who lobby us all the time, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the lack of transparency about lobbying, not just of parliamentarians but of officials in government. Does he agree that a much more open and transparency register of lobbyists would be a big step forward?

[Dr Opher]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. The lack of transparency is a key issue. In 2023, oil and gas lobbyists spoke to Tory MPs on average 1.4 times per day, so is it really any wonder that they are now stepping back from their commitment to net zero? We must stop that sort of influence in Parliament. We must take the evidence and respond in the right way.

We must restore trust in politics and reform how donations are made. We should look at the whole system of party funding and restore faith in politics.

17:16

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I want to start by taking stock of where we are as a country. We are in a particular moment in British history. The Conservative Government that this Labour Government replaced did a number on this country in two ways. First, as we have heard from other hon. Members, our electoral and political system has been diminished—for instance, the Electoral Commission has fewer teeth. Secondly, vast swathes of our country feel hopeless. When I knocked on doors over the past two years, I began to feel that the opposition was not in fact the Conservative party but hopelessness. Whether it is the fabric of our society being torn apart or our public services being underfunded, people have been cast adrift, and they are increasingly unconfident about the ability of democracy to fix our problems. That is why fixing these problems is so important for this Government.

We are also in a particular moment in world history. That moment is one of democratic backsliding, and of the rise of authoritarianism, populism and misinformation. If we as a leading western democracy do not fix our rules around political donations and our electoral and political system, we will not be able to contribute to the survival of democracy in this moment, when democracy faces such a significant challenge. We have to get it right for our own people, but we have to get it right, too, for the democracies of the world.

It is important, therefore, that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations, and that the Prime Minister has said that he wishes to protect democracy from the threat of interference. The Government are right that we need to move further and faster to protect our elections and our national security against foreign interference. That means shoring up and shielding the integrity of our democracy and our institutions, which have been made vulnerable to foreign actors by some of the changes made by the previous Government, which we have heard about.

We also need to reflect on the fact that this world moment involves a particular intersection between the concentration of wealth that can sway elections in the hands of a small number of people who happen to be tech billionaires, and the fact that these wealthy men are foreigners to our country. If they were to get engaged in our politics under the current system, they could sway our elections through donations, as well as through their use of technology and communication channels. That is particularly important, because there are challenges around the use of the online space to spread misinformation, the role of artificial intelligence and the role of hacks, as well as questions about donations to political parties, candidates and agendas.

We know the names of some of these tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin. There is also, as we all know, Elon Musk. I talk about Elon Musk here for illustrative purposes, rather than just to single him out as an individual; any of the individuals I have just mentioned could use their tech wealth to be involved in the political activities of this country. But as I saw when I went to Queen’s Park Infant Academy and spoke to some of the younger people there, they are concerned about foreign donations into our country’s political system.

One young person said to me, “What do you make of Elon Musk?” I did not quite know what to say, so I flipped the question back and said to that child, “Well, what do you make?” Her answer was absolutely pitch perfect. She said, “Why is a South African-born person, who lives in the United States, has funded a presidential election there, and is now part of the US Government, threatening to get involved in UK politics. I can’t even have a say in UK politics.” I think she makes an interesting point, and I thank her for making it.

Elon Musk cannot legally make a donation personally to a British political party, but he could go through UK subsidiaries of his companies, and we ought to be worried about that. He has suggested that he could donate significant sums of money to a political party in the UK. My concern is not about who he chooses to give that money to—I would not want his money coming to the Labour party. My concern is about his ability to give that money under present rules and the influence that that could buy. We have to be concerned about that.

There is a second point: we have a prevalence of wealth among tech billionaires, who may be getting involved in the political system of our country, and these are individuals who also have control over platforms, such as X and Starlink in the case of Elon Musk. That gives him significant control over access to information, and also over the integrity of information on those channels. For instance, with Ukraine, he has made on-again, off-again threats to end Starlink’s support for Ukraine. With X, we know that he has removed content moderation, and as a consequence we have seen that site become a den—a haven—for misinformation and populist rhetoric. We need to think not just about donations and who donates, but about what power those people have to influence agendas through their control over tech and social media channels.

This is dangerous not just within a democracy, but on the world stage. Elon Musk might be talking about funding one political party in the UK, but he could fund parties around the world if their electoral laws allow. It is not just about his view of one particular party in this country, it is about his view of particular agendas—here I will mention his endorsement of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.

How do we go about toughening up the rules? I believe there are three things that we can do. First, we should close the loopholes, and ensure that when companies make their profits in the UK for two years, they are able to make donations, but at no other time. We should also introduce a requirement for political parties to know their donor and identify the true source of donor funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules. Frankly, if Elon Musk were to become actively involved in financing UK political parties and then to breach election law, the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission could levy is £20,000. I do not think that a man who is worth £263 billion is going to be very concerned about £20,000.

Thirdly, we need to look at closing the loophole in our donations system that allows donations from shell companies that have never even made a profit in the UK. Often, they have chosen to be in shell companies because they do not want to contribute tax towards our welfare system, to fund the schools and the hospitals that many of our voters depend on and whose improvement they say is their main priority.

We need to strengthen democracy by strengthening our rules around donations. We need to be conscious of the threat to democracy in the UK and around the world from the concentration of wealth in tech billionaires, who often have narrow agendas. We need to be especially conscious of the capacity of those billionaires not just to fund our politics but to distort it through the communication channels that they have.

17:24

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding donations to my election campaign and through my local Labour party.

Often in debates like this, we look at our political system and there is a preoccupation with the form of the democratic system—for example, debates about our voting system or whether we should have a second Chamber. Important as they are, they can often dominate the discourse. The internal mechanisms of democratic political systems are important, but we also need to examine and discuss the relationship of those internal mechanisms with external actors and the political electoral systems in which we operate. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) moving the motion, and I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing the matter before us.

At the general election, I stood on a manifesto that pledged to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations to political parties. I take that commitment seriously, as effective regulation of political finance is, in my view, crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral systems across the UK. As has already been mentioned, under current legislation, any company registered as conducting business in the UK is a permissible donor to a political party operating in Great Britain. It is therefore possible for money from foreign sources to enter our politics via donations from UK companies. That undermines the credibility of our political system and gives greater scope for a further decline in trust. That leads to the interests of those foreign groups or individuals, in practice or perception, being seen to have influence in our political system through their funding.

I want to address one point that has been raised in this debate, which is the matter of accountability and deterrence. Although foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the current legislation fails to act as a sufficient deterrent. There is an often-quoted behavioural study of day centres that sheds light on this issue—apologies, Mrs Harris, but I will cite it again. In the study, parents who arrived late to pick up their children were fined, but instead of reducing lateness, the number of late pick-ups actually increased. Understandably, the parents began treating the fine as a fee for extra childcare, seeing it as an acceptable trade-off rather than a punishment.

We face a similar risk in our political donation system. Under current rules, the electoral system can issue fines of up to £20,000 for breaches. However, for a political party that can spend millions of pounds on a campaign, that amount may be seen as a small price to pay for breaking the rules. It becomes less of a deterrent and more like an operational cost, just as the day care fine became the cost of convenience. If we are serious about protecting the integrity of our electoral system, we must ensure that penalties are strong enough to truly deter illegal behaviour, and are not just seen as a fee to be factored into campaign budgets.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, the Committee on Standards in Public Life agrees and suggests that maximum fines should be 4% of the campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher. Without sharper teeth in our regulations, we risk allowing those with deeper pockets to buy an unfair advantage, undermining the very principles of democracy.

I therefore support the Government’s intention to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties to protect our democracy and uphold the integrity of elections. I understand that they will be published in due course, but I urge the Government to do it as quickly as possible. While the current rules remain in place, the potential for abuse remains evident. The Electoral Commission stated in January this year that it would use its expertise and experience in regulating the political finance regime to help to ensure that any changes are workable and evidence based. Any proposals to change the rules on donations should be properly scrutinised and debated before becoming law.

I look forward to this debate continuing when said changes to electoral law are put before the House. To maintain public trust in our electoral system, those rules must be strengthened. It is upon all of us in this place to increase people’s engagement with the political process. However, to develop that engagement and promote transparency, we need to build trust. One way in which we can build that trust is to take action on the rules on political donations.

17:29

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate and the petitioners for bringing to Parliament this important petition, warning of the corrosion of trust between elected politicians and voters and of the vulnerability of our political finance system. I was proud last month to bring forward a ten-minute rule Bill on political donations, and I am pleased that Members from across the House continue to shine a light on this important issue. I hope that today’s debate has further encouraged the Government to take political finance reform seriously and give it the priority it deserves.

This debate has made one thing very clear: there is growing agreement across the House that our system of political donations is in urgent need of reform. We must act to restore public trust in our democracy, and that means protecting it from undue influence, whether foreign or domestic. For too long, our political finance rules have lagged behind the reality of modern campaigning. The result? A system that concentrates too much power in too few hands, while many voters feel increasingly unheard.

Politics should be for everyone, not just the super-rich. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a cap on political donations and close the loopholes that continue to allow foreign money into our system. Our current rules leave the door dangerously open to influence from sources that do not always reflect the values or interests of the British people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) rightly observed. We believe that every voice should count equally. That is the only way we can ensure that it is the people of this country—not billionaires, not oligarchs and not corporate lobbyists—who decide our future at the ballot box.

We have heard good points from the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the lack of transparency in lobbying. Trust in politics is faltering. A recent poll showed that more than two thirds of the British public support a cap on political donations. The case for change is clear, and the public know it. It is time that the Government caught up.

Under the current rules there is still no limit on how much a single person or company can donate and, despite years of warnings, loopholes in our political finance laws remain wide open. These weaknesses have allowed foreign actors to funnel money into our politics through opaque networks and UK-registered companies. Successive Governments have failed to act. Now the new Government have a real opportunity to deliver meaningful political finance reform and safeguard our democracy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps will be taken to ensure fairness and transparency.

Public participation in politics is worryingly low—and why would it not be when so many people feel that their voice does not count and that decisions are made in private boardrooms, not public debates? As public servants, we have a duty to change that, and we can start by strengthening the integrity of our political system.

This is not just a question of fairness; it is a question of national security, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) explained. The malign Russian influence on one of the most important referendums in British history must be investigated as a matter of urgency. Our current rules leave our democracy exposed. Whether through digital interference, shell companies or strategic donations, hostile actors have found ways to reach into our democratic process. We have seen worrying headlines about foreign billionaires expressing interest in bankrolling political parties. Under our current rules, we are worryingly powerless to stop that, even when the money could distort public debate and undermine faith in our institutions.

Britain has long taken pride in being a beacon of democracy, but pride alone is not enough. We need meaningful action from the Government to protect what we value. Our political finance system is riddled with loopholes, and they are not minor technicalities: they are gaping vulnerabilities that can be and have been exploited. If we are serious about protecting our democracy, we must introduce a fair and proportionate cap on political donations, and close the blatant loopholes that allow foreign money to flow unrestricted into our politics. These are not radical ideas; they are overdue reforms backed by a broad public consensus.

Our politics must serve the British people, not the privileged few. Every citizen deserves an equal voice, and protecting our democracy from undue influence is the test of our commitment to that principle. Let us act now. Let us introduce fair caps, close the loopholes and give our constituents confidence that their votes matter just as much as anyone else’s. If we want to restore faith in our democracy, we must show that it really belongs to the people.

17:34

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

This is the second time in a few weeks that we have debated this issue. I am aware that we are likely to be interrupted shortly for multiple votes, but I will do my best to make some progress in responding to the many and varied points that have been made.

The debate about political financing always feels like an equal opportunity debate: we can all find something in other political parties’ financial arrangements that we would like to criticise and call into question. However, the high degree of cross-party commitment—and the fact that Governments of all parties over the years have passed legislation to ensure a high degree of security in UK political financing—demonstrates that our politics, on the whole and by any international comparison, is pretty clean. Members have raised a number of points, however, that have been widely debated and that are worth our consideration, and that I know the Government are already looking at.

The first point that is important to highlight is that foreign donations to political parties in the UK are already illegal. It is also illegal for foreign citizens to channel their own money through UK sources. Although we have heard a great deal of political debate about donations, prompted by Mr Musk and his comments, it is clear that if a UK company acted as an agent for a donation by a foreign company, that would be an impermissible donation under current laws. If a person or an organisation makes a donation on behalf of another without disclosing who that donation is from, that is also against our laws as they currently stand. The key thing is to make sure that we have effective measures in place for the enforcement of those rules.

A number of Members referred to the role of the Electoral Commission. It is important that we reflect that more recent legislation is based on the original Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which was passed by a previous Labour Government. I draw the attention of Members who have criticised more recent legislative developments to the words of a then Labour Minister when that legislation passed through the House. With respect to the Committee that designed the legislation, he said:

“The Neill committee made clear its view that prosecutions in respect of breaches of the law relating to controls on donations and election expenses should be placed in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and should not be the concern of the commission…the commission does not have that power... the commission will be an enforcement authority but not a prosecuting authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 631-632.]

There had clearly been some drift over time, whereby there was a lack of clarity as to who was responsible. Given, in particular, the significant civil penalties that can be levied by the commission, there was a requirement for absolute clarity that prosecutions for breaches of the law were a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, since any objection to those would likely end in a judicial review anyway. That is something that all Members should welcome in terms of bringing clarity to the process.

I have a few brief questions for the Minister, which will reflect what we debated previously on the Floor of the House. First, it is clear that, contrary to the points that have been made, taxation has never been a basis for suffrage in the UK, and a number of situations relating to that have been clarified in recent caselaw. Students, for example, are exempt from paying council tax, but none the less have a vote in local elections where they reside. There are also expats from the UK who have paid no taxes for a long time but have the right to vote, while others pay significant UK taxes on investments, pensions and other assets held in the UK and do not have a vote. As such, it is important to recognise that although those who pay taxes in the UK have a significant connection to this country, that is not the only basis on which people may exercise a vote.

The last Government, in the previous Parliament, made a commitment during the passage of the National Security Act 2023 to enhance powers so that regulators, law enforcement and security services could share information with political parties. That was, in part, designed to help avoiding a repeat of the situation in which the Labour party found itself taking £700,000 from Chinese spies. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that those commitments are delivered, so that our political parties can access that information when risks are identified?

Will the Minister close the loophole that was created by the Labour Welsh Government and the SNP Scottish Government, which for the first time allows Russian, Chinese and Iranian citizens who are resident in Wales and Scotland to donate to UK-wide political parties and campaigns, when those donations would otherwise be banned? Will she tell us why China is not to be included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I appreciate that the Government are seeking to enhance relationships with China, but that does create a significance risk of foreign interference. Will she say on record, as she previously did in the House, that she accepts that UK politicians are low risk, and that—although there are significant rules in the politically-exposed persons agenda, which has had a impact on the ability of parliamentarians from both sides of the House and their families to access financial services—no significant risk has materialised?

Finally, will the Minister commit to ensure that there will be the fullest possible consultation with all political parties and wider stakeholders on any planned changes to political finance law? There is a long-standing precedent that, when Governments of any party seek to change such law, they engage with the widest possible group of stakeholders. However, thus far, there have been no discussions with the parliamentary parties panel, no formal consultations with parties, nor any discussions on Privy Council terms about what those changes may be. It would be helpful for the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box whether that will happen as it always has in the past.

It is clear that to address the concerns that many Members have set out, there needs to be a reflection on not only the influence of political financial donations but the impact of benefits in kind. For example, technology companies seek to use algorithms hosted, based and written outside of the UK to influence where the eyes of UK residents and voters fall when engaging with the political system. We know that that creates a significant risk that needs to be addressed. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate, and it is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

17:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate, and I congratulate Jeremy Stone on creating the petition, which received such a large number of signatories. It is great to see so many Members join this Westminster Hall debate, which builds on a previous debate on the Floor of the House. We have heard many passionate and principled speeches on a matter that should rightly concern all of us. Those speeches illustrate a shared desire to protect our democracy from those who would seek to disrupt it, and they help to illuminate our path forward on this vital agenda.

We inherit a precious democracy forged through centuries of struggle and reform. The Reform Act 1832 began to address electoral inequalities, and the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928 extended suffrage to all adults, regardless of gender or property ownership. Our democracy has continued to evolve. The Government intend to continue that tradition by widening participation and extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Over the years, our democracy has shown its resilience and ability to adapt to challenges. Faced with concerns about undue influence in politics, Parliament has repeatedly risen to the occasion. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is a great example. The Act addressed concerns held then about political funding and established our modern regulatory framework. The UK has shown its capacity to preserve the core principles of democracy as the world changes and new threats emerge. Today, as democracies all over the world confront the challenges of foreign interference, we must again be vigilant and take action to safeguard what is precious.

Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system, which is why the law is clear that foreign donations are not permitted. The only exception is for donations from certain Irish sources to Northern Irish political parties. That exception recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Accepting or facilitating an illegitimate foreign donation is rightly a criminal offence: political parties are required by law to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible, and there are rules that safeguard against impermissible donations via proxies.

Although it is clear that foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the Government recognise the continued risk posed by actors who seek to interfere in our democratic process. The current rules no longer match the sophistication and perseverance of those who wish to undermine our laws, and that threat must be addressed through stronger safeguards. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to

“strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”,

including through enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. We are considering a series of new measures that would achieve that, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations.

Many Members raised the notion of restricting the size of individual political donations. The Government do not plan to introduce such restrictions, as we are rightly focused on safeguards that protect against the threat of foreign interference. I mentioned at the start that we must protect what is hard won. It is vital that those who play a crucial role in our democracy can fundraise effectively and communicate their ideas with the electorate. Those who choose to participate in electoral campaigns must follow the strict accounting and transparency rules that apply to political donations, and the strict spending limits for election campaigns.

Members have mentioned the important role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system as the regulator of political finance. The robust enforcement of political finance rules is crucial to promoting public confidence in our democratic processes, ensuring their integrity, and combating the threat of foreign interference. That is why we have also committed to reviewing the powers of the regulator to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties. I can assure Members that we are currently weighing evidence from stakeholders, including recommendations from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission. [Interruption.]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is now suspended for Divisions. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes for every subsequent vote. Everyone who has spoken in today’s debate is expected to return for the winding-up speeches.

17:48

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

18:40

On resuming—

[Rushanara Ali]

I want to sum up some of the contributions made by colleagues. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, who of course opened the debate, for the points in her speech; to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his contribution; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for his contribution, as well as other hon. Members—I hope I am not missing colleagues out—including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell).

There were some excellent contributions about some of the outstanding issues that we need to address, as a Parliament and a Government, by my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and, of course, by the Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

Various questions were raised in the debate. In relation to the issues surrounding donations, we recognise that further work needs to be done. The Government are concerned about the growing threat of foreign interference and are focused on ensuring that we have systemic resilience and institutional strength. Of course, any suspected breaches of the rules, now or in the future, will remain a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police.

A number of colleagues mentioned donations from overseas electors. As has been mentioned, the franchise change for British citizens living overseas came into effect on 16 January 2024, removing the 15-year limit on overseas citizens’ voting rights. Overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that includes the right to donate to the parties or candidates they support, but foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors, and overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identities confirmed as part of the registration process. Colleagues asked questions relating to the 15-year rule; we have no plans to reintroduce it.

A further question was raised about increasing the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for breaches of the political finance framework. As I stated earlier, robust enforcement of political finance rules by the Electoral Commission is crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral system. As I said, that is why, as part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we will look at any changes that are necessary to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.

The strategy and policy statement was raised. We recognise the vital role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system, promoting public confidence in the democratic process and ensuring its integrity, and this Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. The current strategy and policy statement does not reflect the Government’s priorities, and we will not keep it in its current form. Alongside our broader electoral reforms to strengthen democracy, we will be reflecting on what actions are necessary in relation to the statement in the coming months.

Hon. Members raised the issue of safeguards against political donors being given favourable treatment in relation to Government contracts—for instance, PPE contracts. The Procurement Act 2023 strengthens existing obligations in respect of conflicts of interest. Contracting authorities must take all reasonable steps to identify, mitigate and keep under review conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Where a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, and if steps to mitigate it cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded from that procurement.

Hon. Members raised the issue of foreign nationals being allowed to donate in UK elections. Electoral law ensures that only those with legitimate ties to the UK can donate. That includes people of varying nationalities who are established in the UK and are legitimately entitled to vote in certain elections, such as resident Commonwealth citizens. We do not propose to renege on that principle; instead, we are focusing our efforts on the real risk of foreign interference coming from external actors with no such legitimate links.

Reference was made to lobbying. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 ensures that there is transparency around meetings between Ministers and external groups. When it comes to foreign influence, additional controls are being implemented through the foreign influence registration scheme that will require those being directed by a foreign power to carry out, or arrange for others to carry out, political influence activities to register with the scheme.

I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues, and I am happy to follow up in writing if there are outstanding issues that I have not been able to address.

[Tom Hayes]

The Labour party was elected on a manifesto that committed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote; the Minister referred to this earlier. Can she confirm that we will give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, and perhaps set out a rough timetable for when that might happen?

[Rushanara Ali]

We have already set out our plans in Parliament, and before the summer recess we will set out a strategy in relation to what we intend to do, including the legislation.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am delighted to hear that the Government will give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Do the Government intend to appropriately educate 16 and 17-year-olds about the right to vote?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think I should have allowed that first intervention, and I certainly should not have allowed the second. This is completely out of scope. Can we stick to the motion?

[Rushanara Ali]

Hon. Members have raised a number of issues. That particular point is important, and I have addressed it in other debates in Parliament.

I look forward to working with colleagues across parties on the subject we are debating today, as well as on the broader democracy agenda. We will get this work done well only if we work across parties as much as possible, while recognising, of course, that there will be some differences. I think we can all agree that if we want the next generation to be prepared and active in our democracy, we must work together to ensure we get this agenda right.

I reiterate my commitment to working with colleagues on this important agenda. The work to protect our democracy is a cross-cutting and UK-wide effort that extends beyond political finance regulation. Working with the intelligence agencies, the devolved Governments, the police and external partners, we remain vigilant against the full spectrum of threats, from cyber-vulnerabilities to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Before the summer recess, we will publish a comprehensive document outlining the Government’s approach to electoral reform for this Parliament. Once again, I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions to this important debate. I believe we all want a robust, vibrant and representative democracy, and that means taking the necessary steps to ensure we safeguard ourselves against foreign interference and uphold the integrity of our elections.

18:49

[Irene Campbell]

It has been an honour to open and close this debate. Democracy should not be distorted by money from unclear and illegal sources. Foreign donations can lead to foreign interference. Serious changes must be considered so that the public can once again have confidence in the transparency of political parties. I am encouraged by the response from the Minister on her progress with this.

I again thank Jeremy Stone, who started the petition and gathered more than 140,000 signatures. His hard work has ensured that this conversation continues in Parliament and is given the attention it deserves. I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their hard work in preparing for these debates that we Members on the Committee have the honour of opening and closing. Finally, I thank the representatives from the Electoral Commission I met in preparation for this debate for the valuable briefings and information they gave me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 707189 relating to the rules for political donations.

18:50

Sitting adjourned.