With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about foreign interference in UK politics. Genuinely free and fair elections are the bedrock of our sovereignty. They are how our people in this country choose their Government and hold power to account. But we have seen our democracy under attack, whether it is foreign actors trying to find ways to divide us from each other and rip communities apart, funding divisive political actors here in the UK or through misinformation and disinformation online, or public figures refusing to play by the rules and eroding trust by being either unwilling or incapable of being honest and transparent about the support they receive. No Labour Government will allow our democratic process to be distorted by foreign interference, hostile states or malign actors here in the UK seeking to distort our politics. That is why, to complement the stringent steps that we are already taking to protect our democracy in the Representation of the People Bill, the Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment. Today, I am pleased to be publishing the Government’s full response, accepting all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. The UK already has a strong framework to detect, deter and disrupt foreign interference, but hostile actors adapt and so must we. We will now take forward a programme of reform to strengthen our defences and restore public confidence. In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. As the House was told previously, we will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics. Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, I am announcing that we will also introduce a minimum residency period. An overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted. To ensure that there is no opportunity for individuals to circumvent the new regime, once the measures come into force, the minimum residency period will apply retrospectively from the date of our original announcement on 25 March. We recognise that similar risks exist with other electors who have recently lived abroad but were not registered as overseas electors. We will apply the same cap and minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after today and was not previously an overseas elector. To ensure that these individuals cannot circumvent the rules before a commencement, a modified cap will apply retrospectively. An annual cap of £100,000 per recipient will apply to donations that they make between today and the date of commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions that they enter into from today. On commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors. As previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency. Until the regulatory environment is robust enough, donations in cryptocurrency should not be a route for money to be channelled into British politics. Mr Rycroft outlined clearly the ways in which he believes the corporate donations provisions in the Representation of the People Bill can be tightened. Having carefully considered his reasoning, we will amend the corporate donation test so that it is based on post-tax profits, rather than revenue measured over five years. No corporate donor should be able to put more into UK politics than it has made in post-tax profits. That makes it clear that corporate political donations must be rooted in genuine UK-based economic activity, closing a potential loophole that our adversaries might exploit. To ensure that our reforms to the political finance framework are robust and enforceable, we will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified threshold. We will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the declaration, including an appropriate threshold. Mr Rycroft sets out the positive impact that the new “know your donor” rules will have in helping to ensure that parties act in the public interest. He also sets out his concerns about the rigour of those rules. We will strengthen the “know your donor” requirements in the Bill, adding location as a risk factor in parties’ due diligence around donations. We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Mr Rycroft highlights significant risks in the current rules around these donations, as well as a lack of “transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending”. We will therefore require candidates to declare that donations used to fund campaigning prior to formally becoming a candidate are from permissible sources. Donations made during that period above £2,230 will need to be declared. We will give the Electoral Commission stronger tools to do its job. Mr Rycroft reports that “basic transparency requirements are essential to sustaining public trust”, and that there is currently “unnecessary inhibition on the enforcement powers of the Commission.” We agree. We will therefore provide a clear statutory basis for standardised political finance reporting that will make the data easier to compare, scrutinise and enforce. We will create a broad, reciprocal information-sharing gateway, allowing the commission to work more effectively with relevant public authorities. We will extend the commission’s powers to require information outside a formal investigation, which means earlier scrutiny, faster action and stronger enforcement where risks emerge. These reforms will give the regulator the powers needed to protect the integrity of political finance. We will strengthen enforcement. The most serious breaches of electoral law, especially involving foreign interference, must be met with the right expertise and capacity. Mr Rycroft concludes that the “robustness” of the current enforcement arrangements require “the police apparatus…to hold the requisite expertise and to be adequately resourced…to deal with the complex instances of criminal breach of electoral law”. We will therefore work across Government and with policing partners to strengthen and formalise national capability in this area. We also accept that criminal thresholds and sentencing must provide a credible deterrent. We will work at pace with law enforcement, the Electoral Commission, prosecuting authorities, devolved Governments and political parties to develop proposals. We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment, including hostile state activity online. Mr Rycroft makes important points concerning the dramatic change in recent years to the context in which our democratic process functions, and how this has “created new opportunities for malign foreign influence”, regardless of whether money is changing hands in the UK. We will never stop working to counter interference in our democracy. As information threats continue to evolve, we are taking robust action to tackle misinformation and disinformation, improving transparency in online political campaigning, building resilience to information manipulation, and supporting those at the very heart of our democratic system to identify and respond to emerging threats. We will also consider further reforms relating to online political advertising, digital imprints, lobbying transparency, and other routes through which foreign money may seek to influence our politics. That will include looking at the adequacy of the current regulated period, and taking forward work on artificial intelligence and algorithms. Finally, we accept the need for clear leadership and stronger co-ordination across Whitehall. Following Mr Rycroft’s recommendation, the Cabinet Secretary has given the permanent secretary of the Home Office lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy. This is a serious and substantial package of reforms that will bring more transparency to political finance, tighten donation rules and strengthen enforcement. This response shows the Government acting now where action is needed. This is a Government who are prepared to do the long-term work to keep our system secure. I thank Philip Rycroft for his important work. The Government will now move swiftly to implement his recommendations. The people of the UK must know that their elections are free, fair, and protected from foreign interference. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and Philip Rycroft for his review. On Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, we Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference, in the light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. However, we have expressed our concerns about the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures, and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties. The Bill should have been introduced after the Government’s response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through. The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review. First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason: rules governing political competition should command broad confidence, and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government. The breakdown of these long-standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political perspective. If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow. Parliamentary questions have shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons—with the Committee on Standards, the registrar, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—despite changes directly relating to the registration of donations by Members, and despite this House’s code of conduct. Yet again, the Government are making announcements, such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations, with zero consultation. Without stepping into matters that are the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I note that it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations that they received in the past 12 months. There also appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations. It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials the provisions will cover, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Have the Government properly considered with the Electoral Commission the interaction of the new requirements with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the Government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing their response, many of these practical difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage. To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules governing donations in the period immediately before elections. However, good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires engagement and a willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures whose practical consequences have not been fully thought through. Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row; who amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage; and who changed the laws on election pilots in complete secrecy. They are now gerrymandering local government boundaries. The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.

I thank the shadow Minister for his offer to work constructively with the Government on these issues. He and I have worked constructively to date, and we have met on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. The political parties committee at the Electoral Commission is also sighted on the changes. As we go forward, I will meet other parties’ representatives, too. I would have met them today, had we not tabled this statement, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I underline that the existing standards arrangements are unaffected by these proposals. I look forward to meeting and working with the shadow Minister in the future.

I thank the Minister for this statement, and I join her in paying tribute to Philip Rycroft for his tireless efforts in producing this review. I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to make sure that all political parties sign up to the changes. It is important, because if the public do not expect to fund political parties, we have to be honest about how political parties are funded. I would agree with him more if the last Government had not tried to interfere in the work of the Electoral Commission. This Labour Government then cancelled what was happening. The public rightly expect us to ensure that foreign money does not interfere with or taint our democratic system in any way, and it is good to hear that the Minister is accepting all the recommendations in this review. It is important that we look at where cryptocurrency is coming from. I just want clarity from the Minister on some things. First, there is the requirement for candidates to prove the source of campaign funding prior to their becoming an official candidate. Can she explain the scope of that requirement? For example, would it be possible for someone to use illegitimate funds to buy or rent a house in a constituency for a prospective candidate, with the aim of helping them to get elected? On the final recommendation—for a stand-alone permanent secretary with responsibility for leading on the security of our democracy—can the Minister confirm that discussions have been ongoing with different Departments? We have to get this right. This is cross-cutting, cross-departmental work, and it will be effective only if there is one person in Cabinet leading on it.

The Chair of the Select Committee has raised some important points. I will not be drawn into discussing the specifics of individual hypothetical cases—we legislate in principle, and I will continue to do so—but I will give her further details of the arrangements in writing. She is correct in saying that we work across Government on this issue. I am joined on the Front Bench by the chair of the defending democracy taskforce—the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—which deals with partners across the Government, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office, as well as the Electoral Commission. We work closely with our partners across the Government, and will continue to do so.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change. We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy. We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians. What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed. Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?

The hon. Lady is asking me to consider my job description, but given the sensitivity at the moment, I do not think I will go there. I hear what the hon. Lady has said about caps. I think that there is a role for political donations in our system: it leads to a thriving and healthy democracy that is funded properly and fairly. The Government’s aim was to legislate through the Representation of the People Bill, but in order to be absolutely sure that we had not left any loopholes, the Secretary of State took the decision to commission Philip Rycroft’s review. He did identify loopholes, we have accepted their existence, and we will be working to close them next week. This is an ongoing issue, and we do indeed work across the Government. I have explained about the defending democracy taskforce, and it is a busy and hectic arena, but I try to keep abreast of my entire portfolio.

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, and for accepting the recommendations of the Rycroft review. Can she clarify whether consideration was given to an outright ban on crypto donations, as opposed to a moratorium? Given the reports in the press, can she also tell us what additional steps will be taken to strengthen legal duties in the Representation of the People Bill, and impose restrictions on major online social platforms that are spreading hate and disinformation and interfering during our election periods?

The Government’s view is that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions creates a route for foreign or illegal actors to channel money through our politics, so we are introducing a moratorium on the use of cryptocurrencies to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system. We intend for to moratorium to end once the regulatory environment around cryptocurrencies is robust enough to protect that integrity. Further legislation would be required at that point, and until we get there, the moratorium will stand. I am quite happy to write to my hon. Friend on her other points.

I agree with the Minister that there is a great deal to welcome in Philip Rycroft’s conclusions. She talked about corporate donations. May I ask her to confirm that she is conscious of the vulnerability around unincorporated associations, which the Electoral Commission has identified for some time, and that she is focused on ensuring that that vulnerability is addressed?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct. Through the Representation of the People Bill, we will take forward measures to address that.

I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that there is not an outright ban on cryptocurrency donations. I cannot foresee us ever arriving at a place where the regulation is robust enough that it would be safe for cryptocurrency donations to proceed, so I would like to understand why the Minister is not proceeding with an outright ban. The point about having safeguards on the algorithmic amplification of hate during election campaigns is crucial. That affords certain candidates and certain parties millions of pounds in free publicity, and it affords them an income stream from social media platforms. Why are we not banning that now?

I think the bar will be set very high before the moratorium ends—I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. We would need to be sure that no foreign or malign actor could use cryptocurrency to influence our political system before we would even consider lifting that moratorium. I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance that the bar will be very high before that happens—if it happens. We have more work to do on algorithms. We will be working hard with partners across Government to address this, and I hear what my right hon. Friend says. It is a serious issue that we will address.

The Government are right to pursue this. Foreign interference in UK politics is a blight that needs to be dealt with, and the Government are right to commission Philip Rycroft to do the work. However, does the Minister not understand that the optics of failing to consult political parties across the House are not good? Whatever emerges has to command the respect of everyone, and although I am no apologist for the Reform party, this looks very much like something of a stitch-up, which does none of us any good.

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of this. The political parties have been consulted through the Electoral Commission panel, and we will continue to work with them as we move forward.

We know that Russia orchestrated not only an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s family, but then the spreading on social media of misinformation about the attack, so I welcome the Rycroft review’s recommendations on strengthening enforcement. Does the Minister agree that this has to target not only foreign actors who spread misinformation and the countries behind them, but the social media companies that are allowing misinformation to spread on their platforms?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the priority is to protect our political system from interference by foreign powers, including Russia. We will always continue to hold Russia to account and to counter the threat posed by Putin’s regime, and we will work at pace across Government to support that work—and not just in the Representation of the People Bill or as a response to the review, but continuously.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days? We talk about online misinformation and malign foreign influence, so it is worth remembering that Twitter is a platform owned by an individual who is hostile to British values and has openly fomented violence on our streets. At a march last year, he said: “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”. Does the Minister have any thoughts on removing her Department, or any further advice for Ministers or Members of this place on whether staying on that platform is in the interests of our democracy? What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign influence currently, before the measures in the Representation of the People Bill can be introduced?

rose—

Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that one question is enough.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder which question the hon. Member would like me to answer most pressingly. On working across Government, yes, we do take this extremely seriously, and the work will not stop just because we have successfully completed stages of the Bill. The work is ongoing, and with our partners across Government we will continually monitor interference in our political system and act against it. On that particular platform, I am sure this is being considered, but I am not going to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box.

As a contributor to the Rycroft review—I just asked to go and see him—I very much welcome the reforms that have been announced. Just as we do not want companies to take the mickey and be vehicles either for dishonestly obtained funds or for foreign money into our democracy, we also have to be careful about individuals, and my question is about individuals returning to the UK. Will they be properly here—in other words, will they be here in the sense that they pay taxes? Surely any crypto billionaire coming from, say, Thailand to a farmhouse in Hampshire, who has developed a deep interest in our country, would also want to help pay for our schools, our roads and our hospitals. My predecessor in 1848 presented to this place the huge Chartist petition calling for more democracy, and with the cry, “No taxation without representation!” I say this: “No outsize representation without paying your blinking taxes!”

I hear what my right hon. Friend has said. I think the important thing is to close the loopholes for individuals returning from overseas. If they are not registered as an overseas elector, from today their contribution will be capped at £100,000 per annum, and I think that we would all support closing that loophole.

I welcome the modest measures announced today. However, Thai-based billionaire and Reform party donor Christopher Harborne has already insisted that these new rules will not stop him donating. Billionaires, oligarchs and all those who wish to subvert our democracy believe that they are untouchable, so these measures must be rigorously enforced with severe punishments for anyone found breaking them. Given that the ex-leader of Reform in Wales is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking Russian money during his time as an MEP, will the Minister ensure that anyone found guilty of undermining the integrity of our democracy is dealt with with the same severity?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because he raises an important point about enforcement. We are clear that the framework governing political finance must provide a strong, credible and effective deterrent against wrongdoing. It is important to make sure that evidential thresholds and sentencing provisions support, rather than hinder, the effective investigation and prosecution of serious offences, particularly when such offences may undermine public confidence in the democratic process. We therefore accept the underlying intent of Rycroft’s recommendation 12. However, the Government also consider that changes to the knowledge test and sentencing limits raise complex issues of proportionality, fairness and coherence across the wider criminal and electoral law framework. So we will be working closely with Ministers across the whole Government to ensure that this is addressed properly.

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is integral that the public out there are confident that their politicians are not for sale. It is a shame that a small number of individuals make such actions necessary. I wonder whether the Minister shares my concern that money and corruption always find a way. Would it not be better to have an overall cap for all donations, foreign or domestic?

The Government’s view is that there is a place for legitimate donations in political financing in the UK. However, the Representation of the People Bill, with the extra insight that Philip Rycroft has produced, will provide us with one of the most, if not the most, strenuous sets of legislation on political financing that the country has ever seen. That does not mean to say that we are complacent and that we will not continue to monitor and act when necessary, but this is truly groundbreaking.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government will match this action against foreign financial influence by restoring the principle that voting in British parliamentary elections should be reserved for British citizens?

There are a number of arrangements for different citizens—reciprocal arrangements—in different parts of the country and for different countries. I will set out for the hon. Lady the arrangements as they stand at the moment. We are not proposing to change those arrangements.

I commend the Minister for all the work that she has done on this matter and the Rycroft review. Sadly, there are others who think differently. “Where there is a will, there is a way” is how multimillionaire Christopher Harborne reacted to the idea of a proposed cap of £100,000 on donations by overseas donors because of the concern that such donations might appear to be motivating outcomes in this place. The Minister will recognise that all of us in this House are damaged by the perception that politicians are open to motivation by donation rather than democracy, and that, frankly, it is less about the location and more about the lump sum. If it is “Where there is a will, there is a way”, will she commit to doing what many of us would like to see: close the loophole and also cap UK donations at £100,000, putting us beyond doubt and all our reputations back on the line?

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. As I said previously, it is the Government’s view that there is a place in UK political finance for legitimate donations and we do not intend to introduce a cap.

Can the Minister advise the House on how earnings from foreign sources not made directly as political donations, such as hosting or appearing on TV channels supporting foreign adversaries, will be treated? They enable the significant indirect self-funding of candidates, future candidates, MPs and political parties by those who seek to influence political campaigning. Therefore, an overall cap on donations from British people, including those who are candidates and MPs, is really necessary. Will she comment on that source?

As I have set out, the Government believe that there is a legitimate role for political donations that are made correctly and effectively, in accordance with the rules. However, I will write to the hon. Lady about the specific issue she raises.

I thank the Minister for her statement and I pay tribute to Philip Rycroft, who, as I am sure colleagues across the House will agree, is an exceptional public servant. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, it was a pleasure for me to provide evidence to his review, and I know his diligent work was conducted in a considered manner. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have notified the relevant Member I am going to name. Given that the weekend’s newspapers were awash with stories about the financial interests of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), what assurances can the Minister provide to me that the measures the Government are introducing will prevent people—such as George Cottrell, convicted in the US of wire fraud, who we know has provided thousands of pounds-worth of benefits; or Ben Delo, who has been convicted for flouting American anti-money laundering rules, yet has donated £4 million to Reform—from being able to pump tens of millions of pounds into British politics?

The reporting in The Sunday Times was clearly concerning for all of us in the House. What I would say is that, as I set out in my statement earlier, there are a number of agencies that deal with the regulation, enforcement and potential legal action that may be necessary in cases that involve illegal behaviour. I will go no further than that, although my hon. Friend tempts me, but I will just say that I am sure those organisations will be paying very close attention to the media reports over the weekend.

Well, well, this desperate Labour Government will stop at nothing to stop the rise of Reform UK—from trying to cancel elections, to donations, to changing the voting system in Manchester. If the Government are truly concerned about undue influence, has the Minister discussed the proposals with the Cayman Islands hedge fund Quadrature, which was the largest donator to the Labour Government, giving £4 million in 2024, or with the eight companies that have donated half a million pounds? Sure enough, those companies have had almost £150 million of Government contracts since.

Any political party that abides by the rules the Government are introducing will be able to flourish in our political system. Those that do not can expect to be held firmly to account.

I am not going to comment on individual Members without having notified them in advance, but I note my hon. Friend’s comments.

I welcome that the Government have accepted all of the Rycroft review’s recommendations, but as Rycroft himself noted, his terms of reference did not enable him to look at all sources of distortion in our democracy. It does not just come from abroad. In a democracy, every voter’s voice should count equally, but it is clear that billionaires are buying influence. Why will the Minister not set a cap on all donations, so that we can eliminate the corrosive and corrupting influence of big money in our politics?

As I have set out, the Government’s position is that there is a role for financial political donations that have been given in accordance with the rules, to enable British politics to flourish.

People want politicians to serve their interests, not those of billionaires or millionaires based overseas, whether they are in the US, Russia, Thailand or, indeed, Montenegro. The revelations of the last few days have shown how important it is to update our rules. Can the Minister confirm that corporate political donations through shell arrangements or foreign-linked entities, with no link to or interest in Britain’s prosperity, will no longer be possible under the proposals?

Yes, I can.

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Has she considered the merits of establishing an office of the whistleblower, which would create new legal protections for those who declare wrongdoing and promote greater public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Will the Government ensure that there are criminal sanctions on officeholders who fail to whistle blow when they know or become aware of political interference or wrongdoing?

The hon. Lady raises an important point. As the independent regulator for our democracy, the Electoral Commission is always willing to hear from members of the public, political parties and other sources about anything that people believe may have been done incorrectly, whether inadvertently or deliberately. I refer the hon. Lady to the Electoral Commission, but I take her point.

I thank the Minister for her statement and Philip Rycroft for his work. This issue is something that my constituents care about, because they want to know that their vote is their own and is not for sale to the highest bidder from overseas, whether it is for £5, £500 or even £5 million. Will the Minister tell the House when we will see the changes in law?

The Government’s intention is to table amendments to the Representation of the People Bill following today’s statement. Report and Third Reading will take place next week, so we will be moving forward at pace.

I thank the Minister for her statement on the actions the Government will take to try to restore the public’s faith in our democracy. She mentioned that the “know your donor” rules will be strengthened, in particular with regard to the location of potential donors. Has there been any consideration of adding a prospective donor’s criminal history to the list of due diligence factors that a political party must consider when processing a potential donation?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the “know your donor” arrangements that will come in through the Representation of the People Bill and the way those rules will be tightened through the Rycroft review recommendations. It is an important point, and I may come back to him in writing.

I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) used a private audience with the Governor of the Bank of England to lobby against a policy that could cost that same billionaire dearly. It should not be this easy to pump money into British politics from the other side of the planet. While I welcome the measures announced today regarding the overseas donation cap, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—for me and for my constituents—that foreign-based donors will not be able to dart in and out of the country as they choose to avoid the new cap on foreign donations.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The measures that I have set out today on overseas electors and residents returning to Britain from overseas should provide some of the certainty he is looking for so that his constituents can feel confident that our system is safe.

I welcome these measures, which are a fantastic step forward. These actions are about not just tackling foreign donations and dirty money, but putting faith back into our politics and ensuring that people can feel that their vote matters locally. Can the Minister assure me that the enforcement agencies will have teeth to ensure that these sanctions are applied appropriately and that people can have confidence in the integrity of our whole political system?

My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point: it is essential that enforcement follows on from the legislation that we enact here. We are working with colleagues in the Home Office on policing and with the Electoral Commission to ensure that that enforcement is robust and well resourced.

Several of my constituents have raised concerns about Russian-linked interference in British politics that have been echoed by the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, of which I, like many Members present, am a member. Its cross-party report “Free But Not Fair” highlighted cases of shell companies and proxy donors with links to Russian-connected individuals being able to funnel money into our politics. Will the Minister confirm that today’s measures will close those routes for good?

Any company that wants to donate into British politics will have to substantially prove that it is able to do so by being headquartered in the UK and having persons of interest from the UK. We will end the way in which shell companies have been used to channel illegitimate funds into our political system.

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today and the incorporation of the Rycroft review recommendations. I also welcome the changes to the “know your donor” rules, particularly in respect of location; political parties must be forced to include location in their considerations before accepting a donation. I was going to submit that as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, so job done on that. Does the Minister agree that political parties should also be forced to consider politically exposed people and the source of the wealth being donated before accepting donations?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working across the Benches to develop a donor declaration that will set out where exactly money has come from. We need to proceed on that with care and collaboration to ensure that when a donation is given, it is clear where exactly it is coming from. I agree with him entirely.

I thank the Minister for her engagement with me on this issue. I want to praise both the work of the Electoral Commission in addressing the many threats that we face and the Rycroft review, which I had the pleasure of speaking to Philip Rycroft about. In the review, he focuses not just on money, which many Members have spoken about, but on the ongoing threats in the online world. Does the Minister agree that this is a once-in-a-generation moment to take a tough line on disinformation that is deliberately created in the UK and then amplified by foreign bots? Such disinformation has a bad influence on our right to choose based on real, true information.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tenacity in this field. She has worked really hard to highlight and bring to the surface these issues, and she has taken the time to meet with the Electoral Commission, Philip Rycroft and me. I am very grateful to her for sharing her experience and for contributing to this debate. I agree that this is work that must continue. It will not stop because we are legislating now. We are working across Government, and we continue to work relentlessly to keep our democracy safe.