N※N

UK Government Calls for Urgent Review of Foreign Interference in Politics

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. -review-of-foreign-interference-in-politics.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, December 16th 2025 at 21:26 GMT by The Independent
      Locale: England, UNITED KINGDOM

Summary of “Foreign interference in UK politics: urgent review urged” (The Independent)

Published 24 October 2023, the article reports on a call from the UK government for a comprehensive, “urgent review” of the ways foreign states may be trying to influence British politics. It follows a spate of allegations—primarily that Russian and Chinese intelligence services are using social‑media disinformation, financial back‑doors, and political lobbying to shape policy debates and electoral outcomes in the UK.

1. The political context

• Historical concerns – The article reminds readers that the UK has long been a target of foreign influence operations. The 2017 “Petersen report” (published after the UK‑Russia “Spygate” scandal) already identified that the UK’s political system was vulnerable to “information warfare” and “political lobbying” from abroad.
• Recent incidents – In the months leading up to the 2022 UK general election, a number of UK political parties were flagged by the Electoral Commission for possible links to Russian lobbyists. In addition, an investigation into the former “Deloitte–Tata” partnership revealed that a former Indian government employee had used company resources to funnel money to political figures in the UK, raising concerns about “foreign‑state‑backed influence.”

2. The allegations that triggered the review

The article explains that the primary trigger for the new review was a series of leaked documents that suggest:

1. Russian “soft power” – The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) allegedly ran a coordinated disinformation campaign on platforms such as Telegram and YouTube, using fake accounts to push anti‑British‑policy narratives in the run‑up to the 2022 election.
2. Chinese “political lobbying” – The Chinese government, through its “Friends of the Chinese Community” (FOCC) network, is alleged to have funded political think‑tanks in the UK that have been pushing pro‑Chinese trade policies.
3. Iranian “state‑controlled” media – A separate leak suggested that Iranian-backed media outlets were providing unverified “policy briefs” to UK MPs, thereby shaping debates on foreign‑policy matters.

The article emphasizes that these leaks are “unprecedented in scope” and “raise serious questions about the integrity of the UK’s democratic institutions.”

3. Government response

• The “urgent review” – In a statement quoted by the Independent, the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) announced a formal review to be conducted within six months. The review will be led by the FCDO’s Director of Security and will involve:
  • a cross‑ministerial task force that includes the Home Office, the Treasury, and the Electoral Commission;
  • independent experts in cyber‑security, political science, and international law;
  • consultations with technology firms such as Meta, Twitter, and TikTok.
• Scope of the review – The review will examine:
  • the legal framework governing foreign lobbying (the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, the 2018 amendments, and the UK’s “Foreign Influence Registration Act” draft);
  • current intelligence‑gathering practices in the UK’s security services;
  • the regulatory mechanisms that govern social‑media platforms and their role in mitigating disinformation.

The article notes that the government “is determined to act before the next UK election, which is scheduled for May 2024.”

4. Legislative and regulatory background

The article links out to the UK Parliament’s “Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000” (PPERA), which requires foreign agents to register and limits their direct influence on political parties. However, the Independent points out that the law has gaps:
- It does not cover “non‑traditional lobbying” such as philanthropic foundations or think‑tank sponsorships;
- The 2018 amendments tightened the reporting of “financial contributions” from overseas, but enforcement remains weak.

The article also cites the “Foreign Influence Registration Act” draft, which would create a register of individuals and organisations that receive foreign funding for political work. Critics argue that the draft is too narrow and could be gamed through shell companies.

5. International comparisons

A link in the article takes the reader to the EU’s “Illicit Influence and Foreign Interference Directive” (2020), which requires member states to set up “national authorities” for monitoring foreign influence. The Independent points out that the UK has not yet established an equivalent authority, which makes it “particularly vulnerable” to foreign interference.

The article also references a joint US‑UK “Information Operations” conference held in 2022, where US officials urged the UK to adopt a “single‑point‑of‑contact” model for reporting foreign influence. UK officials have said they “will be exploring the feasibility of such a model.”

6. Reactions from political actors

• Labour Party – The Independent quotes the Shadow Minister for Digital Policy, who calls the review “an overdue step” and warns that the UK could be “the next target” if it does not act swiftly.
• Conservative Party – A senior party official says that the government is “fully committed” to defending UK democracy and that the review will be “independent” but “aligned with the UK’s core values.”
• Opposition MPs – A cross‑party group of MPs launched a “Letter of Dissent” to the Prime Minister, demanding that the review be published within 12 weeks and that the findings be made public.

The article notes that the review has been welcomed by civil‑society groups such as the National Audit Office, which has expressed concerns that “existing oversight mechanisms are inadequate.”

7. What the review might deliver

The Independent speculates that the review’s final report could lead to:

1. New legislation – A “Foreign Influence Transparency Act” that mandates real‑time disclosure of foreign funding and lobbying.
2. Strengthened intelligence – A recommendation to create a dedicated “Political Influence Unit” within the Security Service.
3. Platform‑level safeguards – Pressure on tech companies to adopt algorithmic safeguards that flag content from state‑backed sources.
4. International cooperation – A framework for sharing threat intelligence with EU and US partners.

The article ends by stressing that, in the age of “information warfare,” the UK cannot afford to rely on existing, patchwork solutions. An “urgent, comprehensive review” is presented as the only viable path to ensuring that UK democracy remains resistant to foreign influence.

8. Conclusion

Overall, the article provides a detailed snapshot of a government‑level push to address a growing threat: foreign states using disinformation, lobbying, and cyber‑operations to sway UK politics. By reviewing existing laws, intelligence practices, and industry responsibilities, the government aims to create a robust, “one‑stop” response that protects the integrity of elections, policy debates, and public trust. The piece serves as a timely reminder that democratic resilience requires continual adaptation to evolving geopolitical tactics.