Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is difficult to know where to draw the line in our condemnation of Russian activity, but the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. He could also have mentioned the theft and indoctrination of thousands of children. I am sure that the whole House speaks as one in condemning such activities.

The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) never misses an opportunity to raise the Abramovich billions, and he did not do so today. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cleverly weaved into this debate on Russian influence the issues of second jobs and electoral reform, which she refers to in most of her speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about Nathan Gill and attempted to disavow us of the notion that he was just “one bad apple”—a point I will come back to. Although quite a lot of party politics has played out today, it is important that we do not turn a Nelsonian eye to that case, which is potentially one of the most obvious and worrying.

I also thank the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for their contributions. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury quoted von Clausewitz, and shortly I will do the same.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) talked about the post-shame world. She made the interesting point that the normal constraints on normal activity seem to have been cast off. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said that we need to treat disinformation as the core security threat that it is. I completely agree. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—apologies to her constituents for my pronunciation—said that we do not focus enough on the manipulation of our own people and called for balance.

I approach this debate by looking at three questions. Is the threat real? Is the perception of the threat high enough in the country and in this House, or should the Government do more to amplify it? Is the Government’s response sufficient? This is all crucial. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury will be delighted to hear the second bit of von Clausewitz of the day; as the Minister knows only too well, given his distinguished military career, we never tire of quoting von Clausewitz to each other in the Army.

“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish”

the nature of the war that they are embarking on. So let us see the evidence on whether the threat is real and whether the perception of the threat is sufficiently real.

In the strategic defence review of June 2025, the Government said:

“The UK is already under daily attack, with aggressive acts—from espionage to cyber-attack and information manipulation—causing harm to society and the economy.”

In the same month, in the national security strategy, the Government said:

“The openness of our democracy and economy are national strengths. Therefore, it is vital to keep ahead of those who seek to exploit them with robust defences.”

Is the threat perception high enough? I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned Estonia, but I have the pleasure of serving on the Defence Committee; we visited Estonia and Finland in February last year. I can tell hon. Members that the proximity to the geographical border with Russia focuses the mind considerably. From memory, the Finnish people have a population of 4 million; they can put 3.5 million of them underground at a moment’s notice. They can field an army of 200,000 with two weeks’ notice. They, too, have cyber-resilience and anti-grey zone units that work with the Estonians and other Baltic states to counter the disinformation and grey zone activity. I feel that in this country, because of our geographical distance from Russia, we fail to have that same focus. But we must.

Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6—and, as an aside, a former member of one of the finest regiments of foot guards there has ever been—gave evidence to the Defence Committee. He said that the United Kingdom’s digital attack surfaces are far broader and greater than those of a number of our European neighbours. Given that, as someone mentioned, geographical proximity is irrelevant in the world of information and cyber, we should be doing much more.

We heard interesting evidence at the Defence Committee the other day from James Heappey, the former Armed Forces Minister, who needed to get quite a lot off his chest. He was worried about the number of documents coming across his desk that had said, “You cannot share this with Parliament. This is too secret.” It worries me that the desire for secrecy means that we have all involved ourselves in something of a conspiracy for the past 30 years.

Ben Wallace was at the same session. He said that, from the mid-1990s onwards, Governments of all three colours had hollowed out defence, and they had done so because they wanted to spend their money on other things. It is the old choice between guns and butter: they chose guns, we chose butter. We need to amp up the threat perception in the House and, importantly, more widely in the United Kingdom. If not, those real balance-of-investment decisions that we need for our national security will not be made.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to amplify threat perception, but I do not think that that is required with the conduct of elections. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report in 2020 said that it was informed that

“the mechanics of the UK’s voting are deemed largely sound: the use of a highly dispersed paper-based voting and counting system makes any significant interference difficult”.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that interference in the conduct of an election is less of a threat when elections in the UK involve pencils and ballot papers in village and town halls?

[Lincoln Jopp]

It is important to look at elections to the left of the ballot box, because it is not just about going down with a polling card and ID and putting a tick in a box. The hon. Member for Llanelli said it best: we need to be much more alive to the fact that we are being manipulated and manoeuvred by information and disinformation. We can use pencils and paper, sure, but there is a way more sophisticated game going on here, and it is pretty terrifying.

I come back to my theme of amping up the threat perception. We need to re-arm very quickly, not only with hard power but in the minds of our own people, so that we build national resilience to face threats more effectively across the spectrum. For example, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, we had the Russian spy ship and the threat to subsea cables—I am delighted that someone mentioned them. Importantly, when the Secretary of State took the decision to order the surfacing of the Astute-class submarine next to the Yantar to say, “We know what you’re doing and you need to pack it in,” he also made that information available in the newspapers to ensure that the public had that threat perception.

Standards in Public Life

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Office will come forward with more information in due course.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister last Thursday. The letter, which has been published, included the following request:

“The Committee would be grateful to, now, be told the date on which we will receive those papers such that we are able to plan the resourcing requirements”.

I do not doubt what the Minister said about the Government’s commitment to being as transparent as possible, but in his statement he repeated the phrase “as soon as possible”. Will he go beyond ASAP, so that the Intelligence and Security Committee can make resourcing plans before receiving the papers?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government will be working with the Intelligence and Security Committee; meetings are happening today and tomorrow morning about that. The Government are liaising with the Metropolitan police on the criminal investigation. Once that matter has been clarified, we will be able to move forward with disclosures to the House.

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lorraine Beavers]

I absolutely do agree with you.

The move to Capita was meant to modernise the system and improve services. Instead, it has exposed poor planning and weak control. Since the transfer, the scheme has struggled to work properly. There have been late pension payments, missing lump sums, lost records, broken systems and long delays in answering calls.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I was contacted by a constituent who is a former civil servant. They waited on the so-called helpline for over two hours on six occasions and were cut off continually. It is a contradiction in terms to call it a helpline. Does the hon. Member agree that that is completely unacceptable behaviour from Capita?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I do agree with you; it is completely unacceptable.

Lord Mandelson

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

On the shortcomings of what the Prime Minister proposed from the Dispatch Box earlier, the Cabinet Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November:

“The only information which was not already in the public domain at the time is a reference to official records which have since been disclosed”.

We have obviously learned this week that was not the case, so the Cabinet Secretary is plainly not the right person to lead this Government investigation. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. I believe that an inquiry in public, which could take evidence in camera, when appropriate for reasons of national security, would be the right way forward. I encourage the Minister to consider where we go from here.

Transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment that any of these documents could cause. Surely Government Members must see that. The intentionally broad wording of the Government amendment would permit the Government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass them or our allies—that means Trump and his cronies—or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. That is surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless Government amendment.

There are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary, or payments from the UK Government, potentially including his ambassador’s salary severance pay and/or a pension from his time as a Minister. I would be grateful if, when winding up the debate, the Minister could confirm whether any of that is the case.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The information that became available in September that led to the sacking of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States made it clear for the first time, to all of us and to the Prime Minister, that Peter Mandelson not only remained a friend of Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction but had actively mentored and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction and push back against it. That was one example —there is now a list of examples—of how the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, following Jeffrey Epstein’s conviction, was unacceptable. If the Prime Minister had known that at the time Peter Mandelson was being considered to be ambassador to the United States, he would not have appointed him, and as soon as the Prime Minister became aware of that information, he sacked him.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?

[Darren Jones]

As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.

China and Japan

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported:

“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage”.

Was interference in UK universities raised with President Xi?

[The Prime Minister]

I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this House with President Xi, as the hon. Member would expect.

Digital ID

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. More than 3 million people—a figure similar to the population of Wales—have signed this petition opposing the Government’s plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID scheme, including nearly 3,500 of my constituents.

My constituents have frequently raised valid concerns about the introduction of this type of scheme. One of those concerns is about data privacy, because a large database of private and sensitive information could be vulnerable to data breaches, hacking and other criminal activity. The hacking of the Legal Aid Agency is a recent example.

Increased state surveillance is another concern. Constituents are worried about the creation of detailed, individual profiles and about the sharing of information across state services. Digital exclusion is also a concern, especially in a rural constituency such as mine. Nobody should be unfairly disadvantaged by the state due to being without access to digital technology or the means to navigate it.

What I hear most, however, is that people are struggling to heat their homes and put food on their tables. None the less, the Government want to spend billions on identification schemes.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

When the last ID card scheme was cancelled by the Liberal Democrats in coalition in 2010, it had already cost £4.6 billion. Does the hon. Member share my view that the £1.8 billion cost associated with digital IDs could be much better spent?

[Llinos Medi]

I totally agree. I was previously the leader of a local authority, so I know that our public services are on their knees after 14 years of austerity. This money needs to go back into public services, instead of a digital ID scheme, and serve the people of this country.

The scheme was first framed as a way of combating illegal working, so it would apply only to workers. Then it was framed as a scheme to streamline services and potentially be applicable to people as young as 13. Will the Government set out what problem the digital ID will actually solve? As we have heard in this debate, nobody seems to know.

Given that the Government cannot provide a convincing argument for a costly, intrusive and unpopular scheme, they would do well to listen to the millions of people who have made their views known and focus instead on the real issues that matter to people. Plaid Cymru opposes the proposal to introduce digital ID.

G20 and Ukraine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very confident about the assurance from the coalition of the willing, because we have already agreed plans between the countries in the coalition of the willing that are as advanced now as they can be until we know the next stage of the process. Obviously, I want to ensure that that is forged or welded together with US guarantees alongside the coalition of the willing, which will then be the strongest possible guarantee.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Prime Minister welcomed the inclusion in the 28-point peace plan of security guarantees. Point 10 of the proposed plan says that if Russia invades Ukraine, it would lead to

“a decisive coordinated military response”.

Who would co-ordinate that response, and what does the Prime Minister anticipate would be the UK’s part in it?

[The Prime Minister]

Without going into the details, the plans that the coalition of the willing have drawn up are about capability, co-ordination and command structure. A huge amount of military work has gone into exactly how that would operate in practice. These are not simply countries saying, “Here’s some capability that we’re prepared to put on the table,” as it were. They are military plans capable of being put into effect when they are needed.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Sun Tzu said a number of things, and perhaps they lend themselves to a debate all of its own. I am not aware of the specific point the hon. Member made, but I am happy to look into it if that would be helpful.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

According to media reports, administrators at Sheffield Hallam University told a professor of Chinese studies that she would have to abandon her research. That followed a separate defamation lawsuit against Sheffield Hallam University, as was reported by the BBC. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but will the Government do more to support universities in resisting so-called SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation?

[Dan Jarvis]

It is worth my being clear about the importance this Government attach to academic freedom. We are incredibly proud of our universities, and as a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly proud of Sheffield Hallam University, as I am of Sheffield University. That is, in part, why we made these announcements today and why we will be holding an event that provides a very good opportunity to engage with vice-chancellors, look carefully at the nature of the challenges they are facing and support them in responding to those challenges.

Nolan Principles

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but of course I am not in a position to speak for the Scottish Government. Once again, Labour Members are referring to matters in Holyrood rather than the place to which they were elected.

As I was saying, this matters because, in the context of a disastrous loss of confidence in the behaviour of public servants—including us—and in the face of a dramatic loss of public trust, is it any wonder that people do not take part in the democratic process any more? Is it any wonder that people might consider voting for parties on the far right? Is it any wonder that we see trouble on our streets?

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about people considering voting for parties on the far right; the former leader of Reform UK in Wales of course recently pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery. Lord Nolan highlighted the need for openness; does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with £4.6 million in suspect donations coming from overseas, we need to take measures against the foreign Governments and state-linked groups intervening in our politics?

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is obviously agreeing with the point that I made earlier.

This matters because the behaviour we are seeing is simply unacceptable. Is it any wonder that snake-oil salesmen and saleswomen obtain support? History teaches us that, when the people lose faith in the democratic process, when they lose trust in the Government, when our institutions fail them—which is what is happening before our very eyes—the door opens to dangerous people who do not have our interests truly at heart. That is why the Nolan principles really matter.