Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, has brought us to Westminster Hall today. I particularly thank the 114,000 petitioners, who would like a public inquiry into Russian involvement in British democracy. I think that the Nathan Gill case and the petition do us a great good because they have flushed out, and given us a chance to shine a light on, something way bigger than Nathan Gill: the extent to which the Russians are attempting to infiltrate. I also thank a number of hon. Members who have spoken today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lincoln Jopp]

Of course.

[Jim Shannon]

I could not let this opportunity pass by. My point is about Russia’s influence; I want to mention in particular Russia’s abuse and disregard of lives. I am thinking of human rights and the persecution of religious minorities, and I could give some examples right away. Those of us who have stood up to condemn Russia for what it has done have found ourselves banned from travelling there. I am not particularly worried about that; I will never go to Russia anyway, but that is by the way.

Four Baptist pastors in Ukraine, in the Donbas region, went missing; they were kidnapped and are now believed to be dead. That is just one example of Russia’s disregard of human rights, religious minorities, Christians and all those who have values in life. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should condemn Russia not just for the issues he has outlined but for its abuse of human rights, its persecution of religious minorities and its disregard of human life?

[Lincoln Jopp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lincoln Jopp]

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

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

[Jamie Stone]

I have twice, in interventions, mentioned the spy ships and the problems around the coast of my constituency. Let us cut to the chase: does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not have enough Royal Navy surface ships, never mind submarines? I have not seen a single Royal Navy ship anywhere around the coast of my constituency—not since Joint Warrior couple of years ago.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The clever ones are the ones that the hon. Member cannot see. But yes, I agree that we urgently need to look at defence investment in hard power. It is a source of huge frustration in our defence industry domestically and overseas that the Government have failed to agree the defence investment plan. When I was in the Ministry of Defence, we had an old adage: “Plans without resources are hallucinations.” At the moment, our defence industry is dining on fresh air, because the defence investment plan has not yet been agreed.

We have time, so I will ask your indulgence, Ms Butler, to mention that Nelsonian eye. Hon. Members will remember that in September last year the British ambassador to the United States of America was sacked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) secured an emergency debate, in which I made this point:

“Since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leverage and blackmail, because someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office.

I am amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been blackmailed this entire time. If it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, the Foreign Office would have done that. All it knows now is that someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on him that whole time.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1380.]

The Foreign Office Minister in that debate did not respond to the suggestion that they turn Peter Mandelson inside out once they had realised that fact. I suspect that after the events of the past week, one or two Government Ministers wish that they had heeded that advice at the time; they might have saved themselves some problems. Last week, Members who were in the Chamber also heard the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, who said:

“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s Opposition day debate will focus on Mandelson and his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, it will not cover his relationship with another alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite: Oleg Deripaska. That relationship may be just as bad as the one he had with Epstein. As European trade commissioner, Mandelson made decisions favouring Deripaska’s company by $200 million a year. Mandelson avoided proper investigation by lying about the timing of his relationship with Deripaska. How can we find out what investigations were carried out before Gordon Brown and his Government appointed Mandelson as a Minister? Do you agree that this House needs to see that information”?—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 269.]

We all know how Wednesday played out after that.

Lastly, I will speak about the other actions that the Government are taking. In preparation for this debate, I looked at the statement that the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, introduced at the back end of last year, would

“require organisations in critical sectors to further protect their IT systems”.

I must tell the Minister that I am on the Committee for that Bill, and it does no such thing. All it does is to say that various providers from various sectors have to report after the event; it says nothing about making them more secure.

I will leave the Minister with a couple of questions. Is enough being done cross-Government to raise threat perception in the nation? What is the Government’s policy on political donations being made in cryptocurrency? How have the Government changed electoral law to keep pace with a quickly evolving threat? I thank the Minister in advance for his remarks, and the House for its indulgence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of actions by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, a loophole has been created whereby people living in Wales and Scotland can now make unlimited political donations to any political party or politician? Is that something that is going to be addressed by the Government?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. and gallant Member makes an important point. I hope that Mr Rycroft is listening, because that is something that he will want to consider. I give an assurance that I will take it away and look at it as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) made several important points. She is right that there is nothing new about the use of propaganda. She is also right about the information age that we are now living through. I am pleased that she mentioned Ian Lucas’s book, and I am grateful for the other points that she raised, including an important one about support for members of the LGBT+ community. I assure her of the priority we attach to the issues that she raised.

I am also grateful for the contribution made by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). I say gently to her that the Rycroft review provides a vital opportunity to look at these issues, so I hope that she and her party will engage. I think there was an invitation, which I reiterate, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West to do so, and I hope that she will take it up. It is important that, where we can, we seek to maintain a cross-party consensus on these issues, which is precisely why, along with the director general of MI5, the other day I briefed the political parties on these matters, including the Lib Dems. I hope we can keep that conversation going.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne made a number of reasonable and fair-minded points. He nodded to the Scots Guards without actually mentioning them, so let me do that on his behalf. He also took the opportunity to mention Clausewitz, which was appreciated. I know that he takes these matters seriously. I was pleased to see him at the recent JCNSS meeting, to which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has just referred, and at which I gave evidence on national security the other day. He made an important and fair-minded observation about the threat perception. He is broadly right about that.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne will understand that a difficult balance has to be struck, informing the public while not alarming them. He is right that we need to debate these things in this House and more generally, not least because of the grave nature of the threat that we face and the potential requirement—I will be careful about what I say—of public resource that will have to be dedicated to these matters in the years to come. I welcome the comments he made. I hope he would agree—I think he would—that we should work collaboratively across the House on these most important matters. It is in that spirit that I always endeavour to engage with hon. Members.

The threats that the UK and our allies face are immediate and evolving. Russia views our democratic openness as a vulnerability to be exploited. Through the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan, we are equipping everyone, from local councillors to parliamentary staff, with the tools that they need to help to disrupt and detect foreign espionage activity wherever we find it.

This Government’s clear commitments to upholding and restoring trust in standards and integrity in public life are not merely bureaucratic pledges. They are a vital line of defence, ensuring that the UK is not a permissive environment for foreign interference and safeguarding the sovereignty of our democratic future. From the comprehensive powers of the National Security Act 2023 to the protective work of the defending democracy taskforce, we are deploying a whole-of-Government approach to make the UK a much harder target. On this Government’s watch, we will do whatever is required to disrupt and degrade foreign interference operations and keep the British public safe.