The House | We can stop foreign-based millionaires influencing our politics. Why don’t we?

3 min read6 min

While Nigel Farage may have triumphed over a bin and an assortment of monster raving loonies, the farcical by-election that cost the taxpayer £250,000 won’t allow him to escape questions over his decision to accept £5m from a crypto billionaire living in Thailand.  

This donation scandal also leaves me wondering why it is that a businessman, who prefers to live in a tax haven on the other side of the world, would be so interested in becoming a political donor. I am sure it has nothing to do with Reform’s pro-crypto policies, and everything to do with the businessman’s interest in making sure our NHS, our schools, our roads are all the best they can be. But why, then, does that businessman not choose to live here? If he cares so much, why does he not pay his taxes here? Why does he not support our public services?

I am not a dinosaur; I am just a democrat

Advertisement

Following a different Reform politician’s conviction for accepting thousands of pounds in foreign money to make pro-Russian statements, former prime minister Keir Starmer launched the long-needed independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in our politics. Thanks to Philip Rycroft’s work, which I was proud to contribute to, the government is introducing two amendments to the Representation of the People Bill when it returns to the Commons this week.

The first amendment would introduce a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I have spent some time investigating the attractions of this currency and why people would want to use it instead of good old-fashioned cash. Overwhelmingly, the reason is that its ultimate source can be hidden. So why, then, would we even contemplate opening our democracy to crypto? So long as I can be reassured this “moratorium” will never be lifted, then fine. But I think we should just ban it. I am not a dinosaur; I am just a democrat.

The second amendment would introduce a £100,000 cap on overseas donations annually. But I don’t believe this goes far enough. We must be much bolder and much clearer. Quite simply, if you are not prepared to pay your taxes here, not willing to contribute to our health service and our children’s education, you shouldn’t be able to bankroll political parties using funds you’ve saved up by living in tax havens far away. That’s why I am proposing New Clause 85 to the Bill, which would ban overseas donations altogether.  

And if certain billionaires choose to come back to the UK to get around these restrictions, that’s great; we will welcome you back with open arms. But we will also be making sure you are fully contributing.  

The Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) regime, designed to help ease the transition back to the UK, allows returning tax residents to claim tax relief on their foreign earnings during their first four years of UK residence. My other amendment, New Clause 86, would prevent individuals benefiting from this scheme from donating to political parties. My view is that, for as long as you choose to reduce the amount you contribute to our public services, you reduce the contribution you make as a whole to our country and our democracy. It should flow from that that you shouldn’t be able to make political donations.

Trust in politics is at an all-time low. Too many are in it for the wrong reason, leaving the public understandably thinking we are all the same. We can start to rebuild that trust by getting dodgy foreign cash out of our politics once and for all. It really is about time. 

Emily Thornberry is the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee