The House of Lords is set to debate proposed changes to UK political donation laws on Monday, a move triggered after Reform UK received £72m from two billionaires within a 24-hour period. The surge in funding has intensified calls for stricter regulations on contributions from British expatriates.
The government intends to introduce a £100,000 cap on donations from British voters living abroad, with the measure backdated to 25 March. These rules were outlined in a review by former civil servant Philip Rycroft, designed to safeguard UK politics from foreign influence. Additionally, the government has proposed a minimum residency requirement, meaning the cap would remain in effect for the remainder of the calendar year and the following year after a donor returns to the UK.
Housing Secretary Angela Rayner confirmed that the changes would apply retrospectively. She stated that any party failing to comply with the new regulations would be required to return the funds. While Rayner declined to comment specifically on the circumstances of the two donors, media reports indicate that both Christopher Harborne, who has been based in Thailand, and Ben Delo, formerly in Hong Kong, have returned to the UK.
Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite the Union, one of Labour’s largest funders, supported the imposition of limits on individual donations. She drew a distinction between wealthy individuals donating millions and ordinary workers contributing small amounts, such as 10p a week, to political funds.
In response, Reform UK accused the Labour Party of attempting to “rig the system” because it feared it could not win an election fairly. Robert Jenrick, the party’s economic spokesman, told the BBC that the donations were fully compliant with current and anticipated future laws.
Labour peer Lord Wills announced plans to amend the bill to also cap donations from residents living within the UK. As the scale of Reform’s record-breaking windfall becomes clear, the debate highlights growing concerns across the political spectrum regarding the influence of mega-donors.
Backdating the rules feels legally dubious. Isn’t there a principle against ex post facto legislation here?
Finally, someone is addressing the elephant in the room. Democracy shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder.