Live Debate: Commons Chamber

General debate: General debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I beg to move. This House has considered the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and my co-sponsors for their support. Since submitting my application for this debate. This matter has only increased in its profound and urgent national importance. Foreign interference now strikes at the very core of Britain's democratic institutions, our economy and our national security. This debate takes place against an extraordinary backdrop. Just last week, the United States released a national security strategy that represents nothing less than a wholesale rejection of the values and alliances that have underpinned British security for 80 years.

It serves as a warning signal threading through everything. I will say today, the world order we built, the certainty we have relied upon is no longer guaranteed. Let me be clear about what we are witnessing and what it means for the United Kingdom. The post-war settlement that Britain helped forge, and the post-Cold War structures we helped build are eroding. Simultaneously, international institutions, the United Nations, where we hold a permanent Security Council seat, the World Trade Organisation, where we championed free trade, and the organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, are receiving an influence at precisely the moment when Britain needs them most as a medium sized power that has always punched above its weight through alliances and institutions.

Their weakening leaves us dangerously exposed. We live in a fractured world where authoritarian states test boundaries with impunity, and Britain sits squarely in their crosshairs. Russias war against Ukraine isn't simply a regional conflict. It is on our doorstep, threatening the security architecture that has kept Britain safe. China has already made a grab for British infrastructure, from our nuclear power stations to our telecommunications networks and the United States. New doctrine explicitly criticises European allies more harshly than adversaries, with senior officials accusing Britain and our European partners of civilizational suicide.

Europe is the most liberal, free and democratic continent on Earth. That makes us a prime target. Sweden's chief of defence put it starkly last month, he said political polarisation in many countries in the West is a candy shop for a hybrid warfare warrior to exploit Britain's own political polarisation. Brexit division still, raw trust in institutions declining creates exactly the types of vulnerabilities our adversaries seek to exploit. The rejection of value based alliances outlined in the NSA and espoused in Beijing and Moscow, underscores precisely why Britain must now step forward as the champion of liberal democratic values.

This is not merely idealism. It is national interest. Britain's prosperity depends on the rules based international order. We are a trading nation, and Ireland that lives by global commerce were a financial hub that requires stable international law. Britain's power is at its greatest when multiplied through alliances and institutions. Liberal international institutions brought peace and prosperity on an unprecedented scale, and Britain was their architect. From the Atlantic Charter to the United Nations, from NATO to the Bretton Woods institutions, British statesmanship created the framework that defeated fascism, contained Soviet communism, and enabled decades of prosperity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The member give way, sir. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I firstly commend the Member for firstly commend the Member for securing this debate? A timely and important debate. Just in terms of his comments, does he agree with me his comments, does he agree with me that given the NSA strategy and other challenges, we must move closer together with European partners and we see what happens partners and we see what happens when you have that division? And I commend him for his work in Georgia in particular, and I wonder if he'll comment on the situation in Georgia.

And when we see that breakdown in belief in the rule of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law and democracy. I thank the honourable. Member for his intervention. I'll come on to Georgia later in my speech. But on the European aspect, yes, I think in the context of the national security strategy, is national security strategy, is there anything made it more urgent to work more closely with our European friends? I mean, the particular context, of course, with the Safe Fund negotiations, which at the moment seem to have broken down, it would be good to get more down, it would be good to get more clarity from the government and exactly what assessment they have made of the benefit to British industry, of the Safe Fund, in relation to the amount that the European Union has asked for, for entry into that fund, because clearly there is a huge urgency to work more closely together with our European friends in terms of rearmament.

These institutions that I've mentioned must adapt and evolve, but retreating into transactional geopolitics, retreating alliances and protection rackets, viewing international law as optional. That path leads to disaster for a country of our size and position. Cyber attacks, disinformation and economic coercion are now as potent as tanks and missiles. The Defence Select Committee reports rising numbers of cyber incidents targeting British infrastructure, government systems and private companies. But the threat isn't merely digital. In July 2024, a parcel exploded in logistics centre in Birmingham powerful enough to have brought down a cargo plane had it detonated on board.

Security services traced the plot to Russian directed saboteurs. Their plans next stage attacking flights to the United States, using British territory as their launching pad for an attack that would cause more disruption than any terrorist attack since nine over 11. In March 2024, a warehouse in East London was set ablaze by Dillon Earle, a 21 year old recruited online by Russia's Wagner Group and paid in cryptocurrency. He was convicted after a video of himself starting the fire was found on his phone alongside a Russian flag and £34,000 worth of cocaine.

His Wagner handler told him to watch the television series The Americans for tradecraft tips. The arson was meant as an audition, Earle wrote to contacts afterwards. They have a warehouse in the Czech Republic to burn for 35,000. This is hybrid warfare, and Britain is on the front line. As Chatham House observes, what is publicly understood is just the tip of the iceberg. There is far more happening than the government has chosen not to disclose. Often for good reason. These attacks seek to destabilise British democracy internally rather than defeat us militarily.

They exploit our openness, our freedoms, our legal systems. Young men recruited on telegram carry out sabotage, often unaware that their paymaster sits in Moscow. When caught, they're released by the courts, lacking sufficient evidence. This is not so much le CarrÃ© or bond. It is espionage delivered via the gig economy. We must also see China's systematic penetration of British infrastructure as more than just a financial investment. Its strategic positioning, Huawei's involvement in our telecommunications network sparked years of debate before partial restrictions were imposed.

China General Nuclear 33% stake in Hinkley Point C nuclear power station gives Beijing influence over critical national infrastructure. Chinese ownership of British Steel of swathes of student accommodation, near sensitive facilities or port infrastructure, and a potential new mega embassy. Each represents potential leverage. The United States new national security strategy explicitly threatens economic warfare, even against its friends. Washington now imposed imposes tariffs on its allies. The Trump administration has already placed such measures on Britain. Combined with our botched post-Brexit trade position.

Having left the EU single market, Britain faces economic pressure from multiple directions. We cannot and we must not separate economic security from national security. Every foreign investment, every supply chain, every trading relationship carries potential for coercion if not handled with the utmost care. Let me offer two international examples of the corrosive effect of foreign interference that should worry, if not terrify, British policymakers, because they show what happens when Western resolve weakens. Georgia stands as a clear example of hybrid interference and democratic backsliding.

A country that aspired to Euro-Atlantic integration, that sent troops to fight alongside British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been pulled increasingly into Russia's orbit through economic pressure, political interference and an ever present military threat. Young Georgians take to the streets of Tbilisi, desperately protesting to protect their European future, while their leaders respond with water cannons and arrests on trumped up charges. Sudan shows foreign interference led upon state collapse British interests in the Red sea, through which 12% of global trade flows, including vital supplies to Britain, are directly threatened.

Yet we did nothing to prevent the state failure, nothing to ensure early stabilisation and at the very moment when sustained UK engagement was most needed, this government cut our overseas development aid Budget and hollowed out the very conflict prevention and stabilisation tools designed to prevent crises like this, exacerbated by interference from the UAE, Saudi Arabia and others. We face regional instability and the humanitarian catastrophe, the scale and horror of which are hard to comprehend. Russia's influence and operations.

Influence operations in Eastern Europe are now unmistakeable across the Balkans, most recently also Moldova and Romania. Russian interference has been both brazen and routine. Ahead of Moldova's most recent elections, the BBC reported. Voters flying in from Russia carrying thousands of euros in cash, allegedly handed out in exchange for backing Moscow's preferred candidate. These aren't distant problems, they are British problems. Georgia's struggle warns us what happens when we fail to support democratic allies and counter foreign interference? The tragedy in Sudan demonstrates the cost of inaction, and both show that Britain, having retreated from global engagement, now reaps the consequences.

That is why we must stand up. That's why we must stand up with our allies and continue to live and promote our values, both here and at home and around the world. One of the key ways we can promote and protect those values is through our alliances. For 20 years, one of Vladimir Putin's top objectives has been to undermine and break up NATO. The alliance is the cornerstone of British security, which makes reckless comments by individuals, including the new leader of the Green Party, about leaving the alliance.

Music. To the Russian dictator's ears, Russia has interfered in our domestic politics for years. Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum. The Intelligence and security Committees Russia report documented credible open source commentary suggesting Russian interference, whilst the government at the time shamefully refused to investigate properly. As a result, we still don't know the full extent of Russian influence on the most consequential vote in modern British history. Even more starkly, Russia has murdered British citizens on British soil. Alexander Litvinenko poisoned with polonium in London Sergei and Yulia Skripal attacked with Novichok in Salisbury, also tragically leading to the death of Dawn Sturgess.

Not only were these assassinations carried out on British soil, we now know they were messages. They demonstrated that Russia would violate British sovereignty with impunity. This makes it even more critical that our politics is free of Russian influence. Unfortunately, the recent trial of the former leader of reform UK in Wales has exposed bribery in UK political movements. Until we have seen a thorough investigation of reform UK's wider funding, question marks will remain about that party's links to the Kremlin. This is not a minor issue.

Russia is working every day to infiltrate and undermine our politics and our infrastructure. British train lines are surveilled. British infrastructure is mapped for sabotage. British political discourse is poisoned by disinformation and British resolve is tested constantly. But we are up to the taste test. Indeed, our security services are among the world's very best. But we must root out corruption and foreign interference with energy, resolve and openness, which makes the language of the new American national security strategy all the more alarming.

The documents bleak, even dystopian worldview, echoed in recent days by the US president, should alarm all of us. It trashes the values underpinning alliances that have guaranteed British security since the war. It seeks to interfere directly in European politics and fuel instability by by calling for cultivating resistance to mainstream European political discourse, essentially endorsing nationalist populist parties such as alternative for Deutschland, Le Pen's Rosena Allin-Khan Nationale in France, and the Reform Party here in Britain. It emboldens Russia and China to push even harder against British interests.

Most alarmingly, the NSS reserves its harshest criticisms not for its adversaries but for allies. Christopher Landau, the US deputy Secretary of State, boasted that America can no longer pretend that we are partners with European countries. Britain included pursuing policies utterly adverse to American interests. He listed climate policy, tech regulation and alleged censorship as justifications. Russia's reaction tells you everything. Putin's spokesman praised the Russians close to Putin endorsed Trump's attacks on European allies. They sensed an opportunity and we must respond.

The UK must therefore take foreign interference more seriously than it has done in decades. We cannot rely on an America drifting towards transactional nationalism. We must prepare for a world where Britain and Europe stand together to succeed in a transformed global political and security landscape. This is why I was particularly disappointed by the government's decision recently to withdraw from negotiations on the EU, on UK access to the EU Safe Fund, but I hope that we can revisit that at a later time. Madam Deputy Speaker Britain must act with urgency on multiple fronts.

We must strengthen our democratic resilience. Completing the Russia report's recommendations that the government ignored, exposing foreign interference where it exists, protecting electoral integrity and exposing attempts by foreigners to bribe British officials must bolster our economic security, enhance our cyber defences and rebuild our conventional military capabilities. And we must be out front in defending free trade, democratic integrity and international institutions even when our closest ally wavers. Britain shaped the world order. Britain championed the rules. Britain built the alliances.

If we won't defend them, they will collapse and we will suffer first and worst. The world is entering an era defined by hybrid threats, authoritarian ambition and weak multilateralism. This parliament must confront foreign interference with cross-party seriousness and honesty. The threats are real. The vulnerabilities are known. British citizens have already died, British sovereignty has been violated and British democracy has been attacked. The UK built a global system of rules to reject the notion that might is right as Putin, XI and now Trump attempt to reassert that very notion.

It falls to us to stand firmly by our values, to secure a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

abroad. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is, as on the Order Paper, members will be able to see that there are six of you bobbing, and I will be calling the front benchers at 430. So that's a little

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benchers at 430. So that's a little guideline of seven minutes each. Calvin Bailey Madam Deputy

15:45

Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)

- -

>> Calvin Bailey Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank sorry, the hon. Friend from Lewes, for bringing about this speech and perhaps this debate tonight, perhaps expand this to being more than foreign interference, because the way that Russia views what it's doing at the moment is more than that. It's a direct attack on a system, and it is a direct attack on our way of life. This is more than interference. This is conflict across the world. That contest is underway between liberal democracies, the trust that people and autocratic regimes that fear them.

Nowhere exemplifies this more than Russia, a state built on the control and the takeover of civil society. Russia views its democratic neighbours to to the west as weak and vulnerable, and to be divided and to be picked off one by one. They are wrong and we must show them that they are wrong. It cloaks its aggression towards the former, its former colonies and a sense of entitlement and ownership. A warped hangover from its imperial past. Ukraine is on the front line of this contest.

That is why I'm glad that this government and this Parliament are committed to standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and that our government has increased military support for Ukraine to its highest level ever. This year, we are providing 4.5 billion in financial aid and military support to Ukraine. But whilst all wars must end in negotiation, we have to be clear that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine. And we must recognise that we that we will all have capitulated if Ukraine is forced to agree to unfavourable terms, we will have capitulated to the idea that unprovoked aggression should be rewarded and that the victims of illegal occupation should be collectively punished for standing in the way.

It is easy, after so many years, to forget what Russian aggression and occupation mean. Children forcibly taken from their families and transported for re-education in Russia. Prisoners of war raped and executed, and civilians publicly hanged in occupied towns simply for speaking out. We cannot live in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. That is Russia's world and their success in Ukraine and across Europe would represent the death of our values and of our way of life.

I was pleased that we, in the Defence Select Committee, put out a joint statement reaffirming our commitment to Ukraine and calling in the UK and our European allies to do more. We must do more, not only in supporting Ukraine, but in countering the attempts by Russia and its autocratic bedfellows to destroy our democracy, pull apart our alliances and undermine our society. For that reason, I am grateful for the hon. Member bringing the debate and for the opportunity to speak to today.

Russia believes it is already at war with NATO and so with us. And while it competes on the battlefield in Ukraine with drones and missiles, it is also seeking to influence and to interfere in our societies and communities. This reality is something that most people in this country do not yet understand. The recently published Defence Select Committee report on the UK contributions to European security highlighted this as an area where our further effort and cross-government coordination is needed.

Whilst our public is largely unaware, Russia seeks to slowly slice away at our defences and the trust that we have in one another, slice by slice, until we find that the freedoms and security and the unity that we have taken for granted have been carved away. Russia does this by subtly building relationships with local actors and influencers. This tactic isn't new. It has a long history. In the 60s, the KGB orchestrated a campaign to alienate West Germany from its allies by portraying it as a hub for Nazi anti-Semitism.

The operation involved anti-Semitic graffiti and synagogue vandalism, emboldening the far right elements and sparking international outrage. Today, Russia intervened selectively and strategically to support far right and far left parties across Europe, while its intelligence farms out, sabotaged plots to criminals and opportunities from Russian oligarchs socialising with Boris Johnson and the Brexit brigade to Kremlin backed spending on pro Brexit disinformation campaigns, Russia has long sought to influence and undermine our democratic system from the top. And today, in this Parliament, there sits a party whose leader leaders have taken Russian bribes.

Nathan Gill, former leader of reform UK and Wales, took at least £40,000 in cash and pro-Kremlin are from a pro-Kremlin operative. And David Coburn, former Ukip leader in Scotland and Brexit Party party MEP, discussed a potential $6,500 payment from the same pro-Kremlin network. The hon. Member for Clacton once vouched that his right hand man was decent and honest. Now, he insists, there are no pro-Kremlin links in reform UK. So why does his party keep being led by Putin's puppets? I would suggest that the hon.

Member takes a look in the mirror and for once put the party before himself and investigate reforms. Pro Russia links. Russia's reach also extends to our streets, where in MI5 director McCallum's words, Russia seeks sustained mayhem. In my own constituency, we've seen two Russian linked attacks and an arson attack on Leighton Warehouse, storing aid for Ukraine and an Islamophobic graffiti campaign across east London, which targeted a mosque and religious schools locally. These attacks are Russian attempts to influence our politics, including our support of Ukraine, but most importantly to cause division amongst and within our communities.

As the Defence Select Committee's report on hybrid threats highlighted, our democratic openness makes us more vulnerable to Russia's influence campaigns. But this does not make autocracies like Russia stronger or more resilient than us. So in the spirit of democratic honesty, we must make the case to the public that investing in our security is essential. Our security services must play an active role in countering attacks on democracy and elections. And we, all of us, must make the case for increased defence spending essential to ensuring the safety and security of our democracy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am just going to make the same entreaty that I made in the last debate that if hon. Members are debate that if hon. Members are going to criticise other hon. Members of this House, they should Members of this House, they should have informed them in advance. I trust that the hon. Member had done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trust that the hon. Member had done that to the Member for Clacton, John Cooper. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, who is in charge of our national security and who is a risk to our national security. Simple questions, but the answers are tough to determine. Take China, where this Labour government is attempting to ride multiple horses or should that be dragons? Whatever decision is taken on Beijing, it should be shaped here in this place. For perhaps no other foreign policy area is so delicate and with such peril for national security as China. Yet blundering into the powder keg of Anglo Sino relations comes the SNP.

Despite no remit in

15:54

John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)

- -

foreign policy, Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead undertook a stealthy visit to Beijing in a stealthy visit to Beijing in April under the cloak of trade promotion. What occurred is hard to determine, but worryingly, it has determine, but worryingly, it has since emerged that First Minister John Swinney gave what might be loosely called a letter of comfort loosely called a letter of comfort to Chinese firm Ming Yang as they seek to insert themselves possible kill switches in all into our critical energy infrastructure.

With fellow Scottish Conservative MPs, I have signed a letter to the Security Minister asking what effect Mr. Swinney opening up this new front might have on UK national security and international trade. That is in part because the Scottish Government have a dreadful track record here. Embarrassingly, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon inked a deal with Chinese firms in 2016. She boasted of a $10 million boost, but it fell apart when corruption concerns emerged over one of the firm's parent companies.

And there was more. John Swinney is just back from Dublin, where he was incorrectly hailed as the first head of a government to meet the new president, Catherine Connolly. Though it styles itself the Scottish Government, Holyrood is a devolved administration. Small beer Madam Deputy Speaker perhaps small, stout. But make no mistake, the missive from the Irish on the house of the president a snook at this house. But worse. Mr. Swinney also met Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald, the Northern Ireland Secretary, confirmed to me that the Windsor agreement allows for such discussions if they are confined to devolved matters.

But miss McDonald bragged we discussed our aims for constitutional change and will continue to work together. Madam Deputy Speaker, the House will know the constitutional aims of the Shinners so democratic that they dodge scrutiny in this place, are to damage Britain by ripping Northern Ireland out of the Union. And the constitutional aim of the SNP is to defy the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and to tear Scotland from that same union as Labour stand idly by. The SNP have created an effective boycott of our ally Israel.

Former First Minister Humza Yousaf seems more concerned about Gaza than Glasgow Pollok, which is actually meant to represent as an MSP, and the SNP's lack of financial support has undermined the defence industry north of the border, to the extent that the defence Minister called them a threat to our security. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the threats to our national security are not all external. When will this Labour government stop facilitating the Scottish Government's damaging shadow foreign policy? Show some backbone and stop Britain being undermined by John Swinney.

The pound shop Parnell and his fellow travellers.

15:57

Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)

- -

16:05

Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)

- -

Chris Law Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Chris Law Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I first begin by thanking the Member of Parliament for Lewes for raising the really existential threats that we have from Russia threats that we have from Russia and China, but also more recently from the US with its national security strategy. We heard of last security strategy. We heard of last week, and I raised it already on the floor of the House today. That special relationship is now well and truly over. Madam speaker, foreign interference is not a new phenomenon, but it is undoubtedly the case.

It has become an increasing and urgent concern in recent years, heightened aggression from hostile states and increased economic competition is creating a more polarised world. And those and those who seek to increase their power and influence are looking to maximise every avenue possible. Our increased reliance on digital infrastructure, the rise of social media and AI, combined with an erosion of trust and established political systems and traditional media, has opened up a significant space to be exploited, whether it be through espionage, cyber attack, intellectual property theft, transnational repression, disinformation, electoral interference, foreign political donations or bribery.

We are under attack on a daily basis. Regrettably, we have not responded quickly and coherently to this, and in some cases many remain naive to the threats posed. Madam deputy, let us look at the behaviours of those who seek to undermine our society and our values, create global instability and remove the world on their own terms. And how the government has reacted in response. Russia's war against Ukraine did not begin in 2022. It began in 2014, when Russian backed militants seized towns and cities in the Donbas, and Russian forces illegally annexed Crimea.

The Strategic Defence Review called Russia and I quote, an immediate and pressing threat. But this has been the case for decades. When I visited Ukraine in 2018 for the first time as a member of Parliament, I was shocked to find there was so little about our own media and certainly within this Parliament, discussing what was a real and live war. And in fact, it was shocking. The language that was used was a frozen conflict. This was all because we wanted to continue to have supplies of oil and gas business as usual.

And despite the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, it took until the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the death of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury in March 2018 for the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, to be brought in to detain people at ports and borders to determine whether they are engaged in hostile state activity. The Intelligence and Security Committees Russia report warned as far back as 2020 of disinformation, political influence and aggressive cyber operations, and criticised the UK government's response is playing catch up with unclear responsibility for defending democracy.

Despite Russia's malign intentions and behaviours. For years, Russian state funded broadcasters like Sputnik and RT or Russia Today, as it was known, were given license to disseminate disinformation during crucial elections and referendums. Yet despite this, the UK government continues to underfund the BBC World Service. It is time to step up and fully fund it again, because Russia is stepping in. In its place today, Russia has reportedly invested over £1 billion in ongoing $1 billion in ongoing disinformation campaigns aimed at diminishing Western support for Ukraine, while recent events such as 2024 Southport attacks and the summer race riots, both amplified by foreign interference.

And of course, one of those recent investments, as we now know, was over £40,000 in bribery to the former leader of Wales reform, Nathan Gill, who is now spending more than ten years in jail. And we know through recent reports that at least eight other members of that party have made pro-Russia statements. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is able to happen because a fragmented institutional response from the government, government timeframes for handling disinformation are painfully slow. Each recent regulatory advances like the Online Safety Act, which we do welcome, rely on reactive content takedowns that cannot match the speed at which hostile actors manipulate and spread disinformation.

The Strategic Defence Review, as mentioned earlier, identified disinformation as the new top tier threat across the UK. But however, there is still no single entity which is fully accountable for national cognitive security. So my first question is simply this. Now that this threat has been identified and in fact, overwhelmingly driven by evidence, what tangible steps does the government taking to implement a shift from reactive responses to sustained strategic resilience? And will the establishment of a national disinformation agency be considered to enable a whole of society? Institutional response? Further, Madam Deputy Speaker, Russia has been rightly placed on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.

Yet China, despite clearly meeting the criteria for this, has not and remains on the lower political influence tier along with most other countries. And I am pleased to hear that more voices across this House are starting to raise this, because clearly, at the moment the UK government is not budging as it currently stands. Shockingly, members of this House have been sanctioned and spied upon. I consider myself, amongst others, to be inspired in that process and during that time when it became exposed, when there was a defence in here, it was not by the government of the day or indeed the government is currently in place.

It was the speaker of this House, and the other House actually banned a Chinese diplomats and the ambassador coming in here. Yeah,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to give her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee Central, and he's making an excellent speech. Now, making an excellent speech. Now, like some of our allies, we've had major issues with transnational repression, misinformation, repression, misinformation, disinformation, hostile cyber attacks by our adversaries. We've had spy ships surveying our had spy ships surveying our critical infrastructure and much more besides, which has cost British businesses and which has British businesses and which has had a huge detrimental impact on our national defence and security.

So does my hon. Friend agree that in these increasingly tense times when adversaries are testing our resolve? Does he agree with the House of Commons Defence Committee recommendation that we need to have a dedicated Minister for Homeland Security?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for your intervention. I haven't actually had a chance to read that report, had a chance to read that report, but I'm glad you've raised it, because now it's more clearer than ever for that Minister to be established and the department for established and the department for that to. So I'm glad you've raised a very key point, Madam Deputy Speaker, a cross-party joint Committee on Human Rights report described China as a flagrant perpetrator of transnational repression. The Strategic Defence repression.

The Strategic Defence Review states that China is, and, I quote, likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber attacks and through securing cutting edge intellectual property through legitimate and illegitimate means. So why then, have successive governments continue to let China away with this behaviour? One wonders, put simply, failing to place China on enhanced terror of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme registration scheme leads to a systemic gap in the UK's national security defence and ignores the fulfilment of the criteria already.

So can the Minister explain why the government continues to refuse to close this gap, and why they will not urgently needed change? Madam Deputy Speaker, instead, this government seems intent on appeasing. It is not for the first and the second time, but the third time. The UK government has repeatedly delayed its decision over whether to approve a controversial new Chinese embassy in central London, after is expected to approve the plans for a vast mega embassy. This cannot go ahead. Voices from Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hong Kongers, local residents, US security.

US financial services all raising the demands to have this revisited and visited. Probably and surely China's continued harassment and bullying over services, for example, to the UK Embassy in Beijing. Beijing is not a reason to kowtow. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, foreign interference is a daily reality that touches our security, our economy and integrity of our democracy. But warnings from parliamentary committees and intelligence community have simply not been translated into policy. They cannot continue to be ignored, and the government cannot continue to hide from these uncomfortable truths of hostile states and their escalating interference against us all.

16:13

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I congratulate the Member for Lewes for securing this important debate for securing this important debate at a time when our country faces profound geopolitical uncertainty, when hostile states are probing every weakness in our democratic and economic system. When the US national security strategy talks about, and I quote, cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations, one truth stands out above all others. That is, as the government's anti-corruption strategy published earlier this week recognises, that Britain's security is the foundation of Britain's prosperity.

Now, before I progress further, may I just take this opportunity to commend the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North, who, as Security Minister, working with the government's anti-corruption champion, the noble Baroness Hodge, and the staff at the Home Office's Joint Anti-Corruption unit, have done excellent work in completing the anti-corruption strategy. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to focus my contributions on foreign interference in our politics, our elections and how it goes to the heart of our much cherished democracy.

First, let me touch on paid access by foreign actors. Today, the greatest threats to our security do not always come in the form of tanks or missiles. Increasingly, they come through money, through influence, and through covert networks operating quietly inside our financial system and even our politics. Now, before coming to this place, I dedicated my professional life to tackling corruption. I have to say, I was there for appalled to see a former British member of the European Parliament charged and recently sentenced to ten and a half years in prison for offences under the Bribery Act.

Now I take no pleasure in mentioning Nathan Gill, but I have a duty to be candid, to be honest and to be frank with members of this House. So let us not forget that Mr. Gill was not just paid bribes by Oleg Voloshyn to parrot meticulously scripted Kremlin lines in Brussels, according to Mrs. Justice Cheema-grubb sentencing remarks. Let's also recall that Voloshyn Gills handler is a former Ukrainian MP sanctioned in March 2023 for and I quote using his position of influence to promote the spreading of disinformation and pro-Russian narratives which support Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Let us remember that Nathan Gill even hosted Oleg Voloshyn and oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk in the European Parliament, supposedly to talk about free speech in Ukraine. Let us remember that Medvedchuk is known in Ukraine as the Grey cardinal, as a nod to his low profile and closeness to the Kremlin. And let us remember that it is Vladimir Putin who is Medvedchuk daughter's godfather, and that Medvedchuk himself flew to Moscow the day after his meeting with Gill to boast in a 1 to 1 meeting with Putin himself about the extent of Russia's influence operation amongst Western politicians, and that the Putin meeting was then broadcast on Russian television.

Medvedchuk and Voloshin's work was a clear influence operation to spread Kremlin narratives, undermine Western support for Ukraine and subvert our democracy by paying a British politician to parrot their lines. Gill, Voloshin Medvedchuk Putin. There is a straight line from a former reform UK politician to the Kremlin. Putin's coterie of cronies are exploiting our democracy, using useful idiots along the way to amplify their messages and undermine our very institutions. And yet, reform have the audacity to claim to be the party for patriots? They are nothing of the sort.

Now, I wish also to touch on lobbying. Our regime is desperately in need of reform, and nothing shows the need for urgency more severely than the recent scandal involving an undercover reporter from democracy for sale, posing as a Chinese AI investor who gained access to political events to MPs and decision makers with seemingly no meaningful checks. The reporter was not who he claimed to be, and yet he got far too close to the heart of our democracy. This should be the final warning that we now need mandatory transparency for all lobbying activity.

We need stronger revolving door rules so that privileged access cannot be immediately turned into private profit. And we need a modern Foreign Influence Registration Scheme that brings covert activity into the daylight, including activity linked to China. The anti-corruption strategy confirms that the government will keep transparency around lobbying under review, including considering recommendations to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that work must lead to concrete reform, not another cycle of scandal and regret. Influence without transparency is a security vulnerability, as the fake AI investigation shows, hostile states can exploit vulnerabilities.

We leave open now. Moving on to political donations. The government's July elections policy statement set out important measures to limit foreign interference. That work is welcome, but we must go further. As a former financial crime compliance officer, let me be crystal clear. We should ban cryptocurrency donations outright. Crypto is the perfect vehicle for covert foreign funding fast, opaque and hard to trace. And in my mind, there is no democratic justification for allowing it. It is a solution in search of a problem.

And there is only one reason political parties would encourage donations in crypto, and that is to conceal their very origin. I refer members to recent reporting that reform UK, who I notice are unrepresented in the chamber today, became the first party to start taking such donations. Well, I've recently returned from Montenegro with the Foreign Affairs Committee, where our focus has been looking at misinformation and disinformation and how it is spread like a cancer by those who wish to undermine our institutions.

And whilst there, several local politicians and officials raised with me their concerns about British national George Cottrell, a well-known figure in the crypto world. Back in 2016, Cottrell was indicted in the US on 21 counts for crimes including money laundering, fraud and blackmail. He served eight months in prison for wire fraud after being caught in an FBI sting, offering his services to undercover agents posing as drug traffickers, and he's currently being investigated for his tax affairs by HMRC. He was once described by the Member for Clacton as being like a son, and Cottrell's Unlimited company, Geostrategy international pumps out dubious polling and reform UK talking points, but doesn't file accounts or publish its clients.

It's not a member of the relevant trade body and so isn't signed up to the polling industry's ethical codes. It claims to have offices in London, Montenegro, Switzerland and the US, where it is registered in the secrecy jurisdiction of Delaware. And companies with such little transparency should simply not be able to flood money into our politics. Yet seemingly they could do so at the drop of the hat. Now, given Cottrell has been accused of illegally financing a political party in Montenegro, accusations he denies.

I am deeply concerned about his proximity to members of this House, and it is a great shame that the Member for Clacton is not here to explain the conduct of his right hand man. Now, it's clear to me that reform want nothing more than to strip back the vital safeguards protecting our democracy from the long hand of dictators like Putin. Let us not forget, as has already been mentioned, how the Member for Clacton described Putin as a man who he admires. And that's one of many reasons why we need to make sure that the forthcoming elections bill does guarantee the independence of the Electoral Commission.

If we are to have a genuinely independent electoral regulator, we need the Commission to be free from ministerial direction, free from political pressure and properly resourced. Indeed, it was Boris Johnson's Conservative government which stripped the Electoral Commission of its independence in the 2022 Elections Act that followed the commission's investigation into Johnson's Downing Street refurbishment. Its finding of the Vote Leave campaign for breaking spending limits in the run up to the 2016 referendum, and a number of donation scandals involving Russian linked individuals.

Political financing is a cross-party issue, but it should be this Labour government which restores Commission independence, ensuring it can fulfil its obligations in the service of the British people across Europe. We are seeing active attempts by hostile states to manipulate elections. Britain must not be complacent. We must build a system that is resilient, transparent and modern. Madam Deputy Speaker, foreign interference succeeds only when democracies are asleep at the wheel. Britain cannot afford to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one of them. Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And before I start, let me just And before I start, let me just assure you, in relation to the comments made by the previous Deputy Chair that I will be mentioning, a member of this House, mentioning, a member of this House, and I have given him advance notice that I'll be doing so. Madam Deputy Speaker, our democracy is under Speaker, our democracy is under threat. We cannot and must not fail to defend it against the bad faith

16:22

Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)

- -

to defend it against the bad faith actors who seek to attack it. Today, I'll concentrate the bulk of my remarks on Kremlin linked Russian interference, starting with the longtime right hand man of the habitually absent member for Clacton and Nathan Gill, who was at the very top of reform UK in Wales. Mr. Gill is now sitting in jail, serving a ten and a half year prison sentence for taking Russian bribes from Putin's operatives to parrot Kremlin propaganda about the war on Ukraine.

The leader of reform UK, the Member for Clacton, is desperately suggesting Mr. Gill was a bad apple as he and his organisation scramble and evade following Gill's bribery conviction. But that simply doesn't wash. Gill was not the only pro-Brexit politician in Europe spreading Kremlin talking points about Ukraine. Indeed, the Member for Clacton himself echoed Moscow's narratives on the war in Ukraine, accusing the West of provoking the war. And it's also worth remembering his frequent appearances on Putin's propaganda TV channel Russia Today between 2010 and 2014, on which he made no criticisms of the lack of democracy in Russia or their position on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ukraine. I will thank. Her for giving way. She is making a powerful case about making a powerful case about reforms. Speaking on Russia's talking points. Of course, the biggest Russian talking point of biggest Russian talking point of them all is that NATO is the enemy. So when her leader says that the Green Party believes we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Green Party believes we should leave NATO, is that not a Russian talking point? That is not the Green Party's position, the Green Party position? position, the Green Party position? In fact, I clarified in a point of order just last week in the chamber. The Green Party's position supports our membership of NATO at this time of extreme threat on Europe's borders. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's been long known that the Kremlin seeks to interfere and undermine democratic politics in other countries with online bots and cyber disinformation.

The need is urgent. In June 2025, the government published the Strategic Defence Review, which 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, Russia was called an immediate and pressing threat, including in key areas including cyberspace and information operations, and these concerns are not new. Credible evidence of Russian interference in UK elections was flagged in the 2020 Intelligence and Security Commission Committee Russia report, and in 2022, the FCDO put out a press release that revealed the Russian spy agency had targeted UK national infrastructure in a calculated and dangerous hacking campaign, and that Putin was sowing division and confusion among allies.

The Foreign Secretary at the time was Liz Truss, who said that she would not tolerate it, and yet she and that moribund conservative government she was a part of did not open an investigation into the Russia report on Kremlin linked influence in the UK. Now, obviously, Liz Truss should never have been anywhere near the levers of high office, but why hasn't this government acted as the US did? The 2017 to 19 Robert Mueller special Counsel investigation was a criminal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

We need similar here. The US report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election did occur in sweeping and systematic fashion, and violated U.S. criminal law. In 2016, we had the Brexit vote that has so harmed and divided our country, and it is well known that the Kremlin wants a weakened, fractured EU. So where's our version of Mueller? Madam Deputy Speaker, the upcoming elections bill will be critical for addressing the dodgy influence of foreign money in UK politics, not least via cryptocurrency.

And I agree with my hon. Friend on exactly these points. Reform UK is the first British political party to accept donations in crypto, despite the UK National Crime Agency investigators recently saying that cryptocurrency has turbo charged money laundering. The NCA also point out that the cryptocurrency, backed by the reform donor, is used for the Russian war effort. But reform UK's record £9 million crypto donation is just the latest offering from abroad, with the observer reporting last Sunday that two thirds of funds given to that organisation in this parliament have come from donors with overseas interests.

Yeah, this demonstrates why it is so urgent that the forthcoming elections bill must be robust in stopping dirty money. Now, we haven't yet seen the bill, but as well as urgent controls to prevent big overseas donations, amongst other things, the bill must streamline national versus local spending limits with a per seat cap on total spending, have a limit on major donations and give the Electoral Commission the power to prosecute and reinstate its independence. It is also crucial that we have rules requiring submission of all online and offline advertisements to the Electoral Commission as soon as they are published, with data on who has sponsored the ad readily available to the public.

As things stand, we only get partial transparency after an election has happened and that is too late. Today's debate is crucial. There are many strands, as we've heard today, about the impact of foreign interference on security, on trade and on our democracy. But I end by reiterating the critical point that defending our democracy must mean the UK government finally investigating Russian interference in our elections. Not to do so is effectively to send a message of permission, and that is intolerable.

The stakes could not be higher. So I urge the Minister to tell us today, when will we get the long overdue US Mueller style inquiry into Kremlin linked interference in our democracy? Thank you.

16:28

Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:37

Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)

- -

Shadow Minister for. firstly, can I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes on securing today's very important and timely today's very important and timely debate? We live in unprecedented times when those who wish to undermine this great nation are doing so on a daily basis and on multiple fronts. The need to cooperate more closely with our global allies is as strong as it has been since the Second World War, and we must, as a United Kingdom, be prepared to combat the ever evolving threats of tomorrow.

In the aftermath of the Cold War and following the end of the conflict in the Balkans, we perhaps took peace in Europe for granted. The prospect of tank battles on the plains of Germany, and the ever present threat of a nuclear holocaust suddenly seemed like a distant memory, as if of another era. That illusion was shattered in 2014, Madam Deputy Speaker, when Russian paramilitary paramilitaries crossed the border into Ukraine and took control of towns in the Donbas. Since then, Europe has been at war with its enemies, not just on the battlefields of Ukraine, but in cyberspace, on trade and the continued efforts to degrade national security.

We should not shy away from who these malign actors are. Let us be quite clear that China, Russia, Iran and North Korea represent a very real threat to the United Kingdom. And while their methods may vary, their intention is the same to weaken our security, to disrupt our democratic institutions, and to undermine British values. China's actions present an evolving challenge to to our national security. Its activities span espionage, cyber attacks, political influence operations, and exerting pressure through its trade, supply chain and investment decisions.

We've seen very clearly in the spying case involving British citizens, Chris Hazzard Christchurch Cash and Christopher Berry, where the failure of the government to clearly label China as a threat collapsed, a prosecution that had been years in the making. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy said the handling of aspects of this case was best described as shambolic, and the episode has exposed systematic failures that created a crisis of public confidence and fuelled allegations of conspiracy at the highest levels of government.

In doing so, they exposed gaps in communication process and backbone at the heart of our government. The implications for our national security are profound. Then we come on to the frankly extraordinary saga of the Chinese super embassy at the Royal Mint Court. Tower Hamlets Council rejected the plans on entirely legitimate grounds. Yet, unlike the previous conservative government, this government chose to call in the application and seems determined to approve it. This is despite warnings from MI5 who are concerned about the site's proximity to major communications cables.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when paired with the embassy blueprint submitted to the council with basement rooms blanked out for security reasons, it raises very serious questions at a moment when China is increasing its activities against Britain. The government should not be supporting this, but instead firmly defending our national security and critical infrastructure. I will now come to Russia and while the threat is sadly more familiar to us, it is no less serious. The Intelligence and Security Committee described Russian interference as the new normal, and it should be a constant consideration when it comes to British security.

We see them use a combination of cyber attacks, disinformation, covert influence, grey zone and subthreshold operations in an attempt to destabilise Western democracies and test our resilience. We have seen this recently, with the Yantar vessel intentionally positioning itself near undersea cables and energy infrastructure and aiming laser lasers at RAF planes. These provocations are designed not only to intimidate us, but to test how we respond. Beyond these actions, the actions we are supposed to see, the Intelligence and Security Committee also notes that the business interests and financial activities of Russian oligarchs in the UK continue to provide opportunities for influence that must be robustly guarded against.

That is why my party brought in the National Security and Investment Act and strengthened sanctioning powers. This has certainly improved our resilience, but the Kremlin's methods are adaptive and we must remain vigilant. The threat from Iran is also increasing, stemming from an ideological opposition which requires a tailored approach, a tailored approach, one that does not allow Iran to be overlooked in the context of wider disruption outside of the Middle East. MI5 has confirmed that more than 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots were identified in the last two years alone, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, operating both at home and abroad, has demonstrated a willingness to target perceived opponents on British soil.

The Intelligence and Security Committee's recent report on Iran highlights the extent of the challenge, including but not limited to, a nuclear programme inching closer to capability, sophisticated espionage networks, credible kidnap and repatriation schemes, and a pattern of operations that disregard international standards. Despite the recent success of Israel in degrading the capabilities of Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, we must continue to confront the reality that Iran is an acute threat with its own global networks and its own methods of exerting pressure on Britain.

North Korea is often overlooked in debates about our national security, yet it poses a significant and evolving threat. Its cyber activities go beyond the attack on NHS systems in 2017 and extend to attempts to access contract specifications, design drawings and project details from defence, aerospace, nuclear and engineering entities, as well as medical and energy companies. Pyongyang's covert digital operations have been used to distort public perceptions abroad, and to influence narratives in ways that it serves its own interests.

The regime has sought to deepen military links with other authoritarian states, complicating the broader strategic landscape, and their involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is well documented. North Korea is a state that operates largely outside of international norms, driven by secrecy and control, and willing to exploit vulnerabilities wherever they arise. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard some excellent contributions from across the House this afternoon, but may I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, for his excellent contribution and the concerns that he raised about the SNP Government in Edinburgh.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we should not underestimate the severity of the threats posed to this country by the likes of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. So may I ask the Minister in his remarks to outline to the House the work the Cabinet Office is doing with other relevant departments to protect and enhance our national security? Will he pledged to build on the work of the last government, which introduced measures such as the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, introducing powers to stop, question, search and detain people entering and exiting the UK to determine whether they have been engaged in hostile state activity.

As mentioned, the National Security and Investment Act introduced powers to investigate and intervene in company mergers, acquisitions and other deals that could threaten the UK's national security. Other measures included the Defending Democracy Taskforce to protect the democratic integrity of the UK from threats of foreign interference. The Elections Act 2022 to tighten rules around preventing foreign money influencing UK elections. The National Security Act 2023, introducing new offences relating to foreign interference and introducing the Foreign Influence Registration scheme. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Procurement Act 2023, introducing enhanced powers for related public bodies to exclude suppliers from procurement on national security grounds.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. Defence of the realm, and therefore national security, is the number one priority of any government. And while we will continue to debate and scrutinise the detail, it is something that unites us all, his Majesty. His Majesty's Official Opposition will continue to work with the government to ensure that we keep British people safe, at home and abroad, and protect the United Kingdom from those who wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to harm us here. Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this has been an excellent debate. And can I firstly extend my gratitude to the hon. Member for gratitude to the hon. Member for Lewes for securing this debate today on the pervasive challenge of foreign interference in what I thought was a very good speech. I thought the hon. Member spoke knowledgeably and authoritatively knowledgeably and authoritatively about the complex nature of the threats that we face, which, along with the range of points raised by members today, illustrates the diverse and evolving nature of the foreign interference threat

16:45

Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)

- -

landscape. In just the last few years, we've seen attempts to influence our political system influence our political system through covert donations. As we saw with MI5's Disruptive Alert on Christine Lee and the conviction of reforms UK leader in Wales Nathan reforms UK leader in Wales Nathan Gill for bribery offences in November. The issuing of arrest warrants and bounties by the Hong warrants and bounties by the Hong Kong Police on individuals for exercising their freedom of expression. Russian information operations spreading false pro-Kremlin narratives online to undermine support for Ukraine, as well as recent and much publicised concerns about activities in this place.

And as the Prime Minister said just last week, the government is clear that China poses national security threats to the UK. Now, when these threats are left unchecked, they place at risk the things that we most value about our country, our democratic values and freedom of expression, and our ability to pursue long term economic growth. Upholding national security is the first duty of government, and we continue to take all measures necessary to disrupt these threats. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, as Security Minister, I am deeply committed to using my position to cohere across government efforts to make our country a harder target for these threat actors.

The legislative foundation of the UK's defence against foreign interference lies in the National Security Act of 2023. The act has overhauled our espionage laws and introduced a crucial new foreign interference offence, equipping our security and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats in the UK. The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to strengthening the resilience of our democratic institutions. That is why he renewed the mandate of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, and I am leveraging this taskforce to coordinate the delivery of the government's counter Political

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interference and Espionage action plan. I will give way. I'm very. Grateful to the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the Minister for giving way. He mentioned the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, of course, appointed Lord Mandelson to course, appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in America. And for those seven months, someone had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson. I am not asking him to give away any secrets, but could he give away any secrets, but could he please tell us that he has? The Minister has personally investigated as to whether the presence of that compromise left Lord Mandelson subject to foreign

**** Possible New Speaker ****

influence, and whether he knows the answer to that question one way or the other. Thank you. I am grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am grateful to the hon. And gallant member, although I would just gently say that his his intervention is not in keeping with intervention is not in keeping with the tone of what I think has been a very good natured and constructive very good natured and constructive debate. But he's asked the question, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was describing the work of the action plan, which will deliver a protective security campaign to support those at risk to recognise, resist and report attempts of foreign interference.

Strengthen existing legislation to mitigate the threat, and coordinate action to disrupt the use of proxy actors. And in line with our pledge to strengthen legislation, we are also introducing tougher rules on political donations through the elections Bill in order to protect our democracy. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government believes that foreign money has no place in the UK's political system, which is why the law is clear that foreign donations are not permitted. Yet, as the tactics and techniques of foreign interference actors evolve, UK rules and safeguards also need to adapt.

Cross-Government work also continues at pace to counter foreign information operations. Our immediate focus is getting the Online Safety Act implemented quickly and effectively. The foreign interference offence in the Online Safety Act places clear requirements on platforms to tackle illegal state linked disinformation targeting the UK and our democratic processes. DSIT are also driving a whole of society response to strengthening UK resilience against the threat, and the FCDO has demonstrated relentless international leadership in imposing costs on Russian state linked threat actors that seek to undermine our democratic elections and spread malign content through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Thank you for giving way. He is setting out some really strong action that this government is taking to target these threats. But I did want to just ask him if he I did want to just ask him if he thinks that social media companies themselves are doing enough to make sure that their platforms are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sure that their platforms are not being used by Russia and others to undermine democracy? I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is an entirely fair challenge. I suspect, like every member of this House, I would like to see the social media companies do more. And I'm working closely through the Defending Democracy Taskforce with colleagues, across government and in DSIT to ensure that that is the case. Madam Deputy Speaker, Since October of 2024, the government has sanctioned 31 organisations and individuals responsible for delivering Russia's information warfare.

And just yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced a further package of sanctions against five entities and two individuals for their role in attempting to destabilise international democracies and undermine international support to Ukraine through spreading false and divisive narratives. Efforts are also underway to improve data collection on experiences of transnational repression in the UK, and to ensure that victims receive appropriate support. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been a number of very useful contributions made by hon.

Members. The honourable and gallant member for Leyton and Wanstead, brought to bear a generation of service and spoke powerfully about a number of issues, including the importance of our support to Ukraine. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway made his made clear his concerns about the threats from China and from elsewhere. I think it is fair to say that he's not a fan, based on his contribution today of the First Minister in Scotland. I'll look closely at his letter. I was only sorry that today there was no quote from Sun Tzu.

Maybe next time. The hon. Member for Bracknell, I thought, made a very thoughtful contribution and rightly raised his concerns about Russian attempts to undermine our democracy. And whilst I didn't agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Dundee Central, who's not in his place about the nature of the special relationship, I did agree with what he said about Russia and Ukraine, and it's absolutely vital that we maintain that cross-party agreement right across this House. The hon. Member for Bolton West, I thought, spoke credibly well and in a very considered way, as he always does, and I'm grateful for his words about the publication just this week of the government's anti-corruption strategy, and I pay tribute to the work of the Home Office officials who've delivered on that strategy and the commitments that we made.

I thought he spoke powerfully and authoritatively about the impact of the Nathan Gill scandal, and I'm very grateful for the work that he does in support of our national security. And I can tell him that the elections bill will introduce tough new rules on political donations, including crypto assets. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire expressed her concern about reform and sought to clarify her party's position on NATO membership. Though I confess to still being a bit confused about whether they are in or out, and the frontbench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats spoke about the threats from China and Russia.

He raised a number of entirely reasonable, constructive points, which I hope he will understand. I'm simply not going to have the time to address today, but I can assure him of the seriousness with which we take them and our absolute commitment to working with him and members across the House to address him. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I warmly welcome the hon. Member opposite in what was a very assured debut at the despatch box, and no doubt we'll be seeing much more of him in that particular position.

I have to say, and he won't be surprised to hear me say this. I didn't quite agree with his assessment with regard to the collapse of the recent China trial, but let me in a serious point, just say something about the point he made with regard to the embassy now. As hon. Members will know, I have to be incredibly careful about what I say because there is a quasi judicial process that is underway. But should the embassy be approved? And that is very much a decision for the Secretary of State for MHCLG.

But should the embassy be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites which currently comprise China's diplomatic footprint. One to ponder on further, I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the threat from foreign interference touches on almost every part of our national life and this government is steadfast in our commitment to disrupting these threats, whilst also ensuring that those at the greatest risk are able to recognise, resist and report suspicious activity from the comprehensive powers of the National Security Act and the protective work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce to our focussed efforts against discrimination, we are deploying a whole of government approach to make the UK a harder target.

This government has clear commitment to upholding and restoring trust in standards and integrity in public life are not merely merely bureaucratic pledges. They are a vital line of defence, ensuring the UK is not a permissive environment for foreign interference and safeguarding the sovereignty of our democratic future. On this government's watch, we will do whatever is required to disrupt, deter and defeat foreign interference, protect our national security and keep the public safe. Nothing matters more.

16:56

James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

- -

James MacCleary to wind up. thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. I found many of the contributions very compelling and very interesting. We are in a very interesting. We are in a changing global environment that is moving very, very quickly in a security context. And security is a security context. And security is a shared priority for everybody in this House and everybody in this country. And I feel it is something that is important. We name these threats and we talk about them in this space so that we are doing our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we are talking about the specific threats that are coming down the line.

I would just like to thank specifically the members for Leyton and Wanstead, Dumfries and Galloway, Bracknell, Dundee Central, Bolton West and North Herefordshire who spoke so well today. I thought there were some fantastic themes that came out from what was talked about today. The ongoing threats, of course, from Russia and China, the role of social media in the disinformation space in particular, which is being driven by those countries and others. The discussions around the use of crypto. And can I say to the Minister, it's extremely welcome to hear that action will be taken around donations done in crypto format, but also the clear lines of exploration.

Should we say that Russia, China and others are making to reach British parliamentarians and British influencers and British policy makers that are happening on a consistent and constant basis as an important that we talk about it here. The other constant theme, of course, and the final one is the connections between reform UK and Russia. It is very unfortunate that none of their party are here today to answer those specific concerns, but I think it is very significant in this place. Almost every speaker has raised them and they are profoundly important.

So finally, I would like to thank my frontbench spokesperson, the Member for Bicester and Woodstock, the shadow Minister, and the Minister himself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much for taking the time today. And thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question. Is, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is, as. On the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do. Now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Claire Young. Yeah. That's right.

16:58

Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Monstrosity. The giant greenhouse. >> Like living next to a large prison. Like War of the worlds. It just kept getting bigger and bigger. just kept getting bigger and bigger. Just a few of the words my constituents in the village of Pilning have used to describe a gigantic new warehouse being built close to their homes. In a debate about historic planning consent. I am inevitably going to have to talk about some pretty dry planning matters, but I want to start by setting out the very real human impact that one such consent is having on the people of Pilning.

Long time resident Sue said to the media, how have they been allowed to build it so close to our properties? It's made everything dark, the constant noise and dust. And what about the flood plain? Where is all the water going to go? Simone said I feel so upset. We've never drawn our curtains. Now you feel like you have no privacy. When they started the piling work, the whole house was shaking. Residents of Pilning woke up one day to find piling work taking place on the edge of their village for a massive stadium sized warehouse, which they've dubbed the Mega Shed.

It now looms over their homes. Not only is it over 20m high, the land

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on which it has been built. Order, order! I beg to move that this house. Do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do now adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn. Claire Young. Do I just continue? Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do I just continue? Madam Deputy Speaker. Okay. Residents of Pilning woke up one day to find piling work taking place on the edge of their taking place on the edge of their village for a massive stadium sized warehouse, which they dubbed the Mega Shed. It now looms over their Mega Shed. It now looms over their homes. Not only is it over 20m high, the land on which it is built has been raised, making it even more imposing. It sits around 150m from the closest house in Pilning, in crammed green.

It's robbed them of light impacts on visual amenity and it leaves them fearing that with that land razed and concreted over, their homes will now be at greater risk of flooding. Residents worry about light and noise pollution. With the 24 over seven nature of modern warehouse and distribution centres, refrigerated vehicles running while they unload forklift trucks with warning bleepers HGVs arriving around the clock. They worry about the additional traffic it will drill through the country, roads that surround the site and which are already overwhelmed with heavy traffic.

So far, so familiar. Our modern lives have led to huge growth in large scale warehousing across the country. However, what makes this particular case all the harder for residents to take is that the developers did not have to make a full planning application, which would have allowed all of their concerns to be taken into consideration and properly assessed. That is because the work has been undertaken under historic planning consents, first granted nearly 70 years ago and only required a reserved matters application that could look at a very limited set of issues.

And it doesn't end with this warehouse, because those consents would allow many more such warehouses to be built near Pilning, Severn Beach and Easter Compton. As one resident put it, it's just so big and so in fact, impactful and affecting people's lives. The issue is, it seems there's nothing we can do about it. In 1957 and 58, planning permission was granted to I.c.i. To facilitate the expansion of chemical storage and distribution industries on an area covering over 1000 hectares alongside and out into the Severn Estuary in what is now my Thornbury and Yate constituency.

At this point, I must clarify, Madam Deputy Speaker, these were General Development Orders, not Interim Development Orders, but I will be returning to the latter shortly, which I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear, given the title of the debate. These consents were effectively hybrid applications that allowed development without any further planning applications for large parts of the site, as happened with the building of a new Amazon warehouse, and required a reserved matters application in the remaining parts of the site, including the land next to Pilning.

This was part of a big post-war push to industrialise. The local area looked very different then. No M4, no M5, no seven Bridges Filton Airfield was operating. There was an expectation of goods being brought in and out via the estuary, which is why the development area extended out into it. The lorries that would have moved goods about that weren't being transported via the estuary were considerably smaller than modern HGVs. Pilning itself was smaller. Cranmoor green did not exist. The permissions are very open ones and lacking conditions by modern standards.

The area is very loosely described and the only red line drawn on a map is at such a scale that the thickness of a line represents 100 to 150m on the ground. On those parts of the site where reserved matters applications are required. The only things that can be considered are the layout, design and external appearance of the buildings. Planners cannot consider access, parking, ecology, biodiversity, net gain, residential amenity, flood risks the list goes on. Also, the council cannot use a section 106 agreement or receive Community Infrastructure Levy to mitigate the impacts of any development.

The world has moved on in the last 70 years, but this planning consent remains extant despite efforts to challenge it. This, I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, is where we get into the driest of planning matters. A memorandum that the Commons Library found for me highlights that the 1957 and 1958 consents were granted without a time limit, and although section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced time limits, it does not apply to permission granted by a development order.

In any case, ICI had developed on a small proportion of the land to implementation had been started. In 1992, AstraZeneca purchased the site from ICI. A planning committee report from the 30th of September 2011 says that South Gloucestershire Council challenged the permission in 2000, but it was found sound and capable of implementation in its current form by the courts in 2003. There was a further Secretary of State decision in 2022, when Redrow appealed against the non-determination of an application.

This too confirmed the permission extant and capable of implementation. In 2011, the Cresswell review was undertaken to see if the permission ran contrary to the environmental designations affecting the area that identified that habitat loss would occur and identify potential sites for mitigation. The public authorities chose the two most impactful options and have implemented those at public, not developer expense. I know that in response to recent media coverage of the Mega Shed that a government spokesperson has said councils are ultimately responsible for reviewing all permissions if the development is no longer suitable and deciding whether action is necessary.

But what powers do they actually have to do this? They have already tried the judicial review route and the consent was found to be extant. The local Residents Action group that has been set up takes issue with the council's interpretation of the case, but in many cases they were unaware of the development until it was too late to mount a judicial review, and there is no other avenue open to them. I believe that it will take action from the government to resolve this situation and restore some control to the local planning authority.

There is precedent, and this is where I finally come to interim development orders. Madam Deputy Speaker Interim Development Order IDO consents were permissions granted between 1943 and 1948 for mineral extraction. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 created a process through which those old mining and mineral extraction permissions authorised by an IDO consent could be updated with modern conditions. The act required holders of IDO consents, as at 1991, to apply to the Mineral Planning Authority to register that permission, as it was pre the planning system, and then to apply for determination of conditions to which the permission was to be subject.

The government, in its planning policy underpinning the act, said the government takes the view that this is an important opportunity to secure improved operating and environmental standards. Minerals are vital to the economy, but it is essential that they are extracted in an environmentally acceptable way. Similar statements could be made about warehousing and the modern economy. No compensation was paid to the holders of IDO consents, although the legislation covered just about any condition. The government guidance said that for working sites, a distinction should be drawn between environment and amenity aspects where new conditions should not affect the asset value and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation.

The latter should be done under mineral Planning Authority review. Separately, under a 1995 Environmental Environmental Act. There was a review of old mineral permissions romps. This is a separate procedure which effectively does the same thing. Modernises mineral planning consents but for consents granted. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s. And indeed that act imposed a requirement on mineral planning authorities to periodically review the planning permission of mines to ensure they stay up to date to modern standards.

This legislation said that if the new conditions would prejudice the asset value or viability to an unreasonable degree, the applicant could claim compensation. The Labour government issued a revised Minerals Planning Guidance MPG four, in August 1997, which provided guidance on the town and country planning, compensation for restrictions on mineral working and mineral Waste Depositing Regulations 1997 and section 108 of the Planning Act 2008 made changes to the process for appeals relating to old mining permission granted under IDOs.

So, through a series of legislation and planning guidance, we have a process in place for the pre 1948 mineral permissions. The IDO process and one for the post 1948 mineral ones. But there is no process in place for other consents that need modernising. So I would ask the Minister to review the seven side consents and consider creating a process analogous to those I have just described for reviewing historic blanket consents that have not been fully implemented. To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that most old consents be reviewed and modern conditions imposed.

Only those, such as the seven side consents that have not been implemented on all the parcels of land to which the consent applies. I appreciate that there is no power to halt the existing construction of the Mega Shed, much to the anger of my constituents affected by it, but it would provide a route to ensuring that all issues can be considered before permitting further development. Furthermore, I would ask him to consider taking steps to prevent this issue being created in future for most consents.

If you don't implement within three years, the consent lapses. Thanks to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The problem arises where consents cover a large area like this, and you are considered to have implemented as soon as the first thing is built, resulting in the whole consent being live indefinitely. If this government wants wants to speed up development in the pursuit of growth, it could put time limits on the completion of the implementation so that if not fully implemented within that period, the consent for the remaining parcels of land lapse or can have their conditions reviewed.

If no such measure is introduced and governments continue to let developers hang around for 70 years with no incentive to finish implementing permissions and no modernisation of conditions, it makes a mockery of the government's plans for growth and its stated commitment to do so sustainably. Thirdly, I would highlight the particular concerns felt by residents and the parish council around flooding. I am meeting the Environment Agency tomorrow and would appreciate the Minister's support for me convening a meeting of the agency, the Parish Council and South Gloucestershire Council to understand these concerns better and identify any action necessary to address them.

This is a complex matter which I have tried to explain in the time allowed and without the opportunity for supporting diagrams, I would be grateful for the opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss this in more depth, to see if we can find a way to give hope to the residents of Pilning and the surrounding villages. Ultimately, they are the ones paying the price for a planning decision made years before many of them were even born.

17:12

Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me start by congratulating the hon. Lady, the congratulating the hon. Lady, the Member for Thornbury and Yate, on securing this important debate. The hon. Lady has made a strong case on

17:12

Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)

- -

behalf of her constituents in Pilning and other nearby communities who are not directly

17:12

Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

- -

09:00

Oral questions: Business and Trade

House House of House of Commons House of Commons - House of Commons - 11 House of Commons - 11 December

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page