The House of Lords is set to debate tighter controls on political donations after Reform UK received £72m from two British billionaires within 24 hours, renewing scrutiny of whether Britain’s funding rules are fit to prevent extreme concentrations of financial power.
The government wants a £100,000 ceiling on gifts from British citizens living overseas, with the restriction backdated to 25 March. Reform UK has denounced the proposal as an attempt to interfere with its finances, while Labour supporters of the measure say the scale of recent donations has exposed a serious loophole.
The dispute places the government between two difficult constituencies: voters concerned about billionaire influence and powerful domestic funders that have helped sustain its political campaign. It also raises an awkward question for Reform UK: can it claim to oppose intervention while accepting a windfall generated by rules that may soon change?
A £72m windfall exposes the gap in the rules
The bill returning to the Lords would restrict donations from Britons based abroad. It follows a review led by former civil servant Philip Rycroft, which examined ways to reduce the risk of foreign influence in British politics.
Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, both British and both with periods of residence overseas, provided Reform UK with the money that has triggered the political confrontation. The £72m haul is described by the party’s opponents as record-breaking and has forced an urgent debate across Westminster.
Labour peer Lord Wills intends to widen the proposed remedy. Speaking on Radio 4’s Westminster Hour, he said he would table an amendment to place a £100,000 limit on donations from people living in the UK as well. That would move the debate beyond expatriate donors and into the heart of Britain’s party-finance system.
The government’s approach is built around eligibility. If a British donor is resident overseas, the proposed cap would apply; if the person returns, further restrictions would follow for a minimum period. Reform UK says the money was lawfully given and argues that changing the rules after the event is politically motivated.
Retrospective limits and questions over eligibility
The proposed £100,000 ceiling would apply retrospectively from 25 March. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner told BBC News that donors who fell outside the new rules would have to repay the relevant sums.
Rayner said anyone who did not comply would have “to return that money”. She declined to discuss Delo or Harborne individually, saying she did not understand their “circumstances”.
Reporting has added detail to the donors’ changing positions. The Times said in June that Harborne, who had been based in Thailand, was registered to vote in the UK. Delo told The Telegraph in April that he was returning from Hong Kong.
BBC News has been told that both men have now come back to Britain. Delo is understood to have been in the country since last year, although the precise timing and nature of each donor’s eligibility remain central to whether the retrospective rules affect the gifts.
Under the residency proposal, the £100,000 cap would continue to apply for the rest of the calendar year in which a donor returned, as well as for the following calendar year. The government has said it is “determined to tackle” the influence of “mega-donors” and has created a taskforce to address the problem.
Labour’s union money enters the argument
The controversy has also drawn in Unite, one of Labour’s largest funders. General secretary Sharon Graham told the BBC that limits on individual donations were necessary, even if doing so placed restrictions on Labour’s own financial base.
Unite has given Labour substantial sums in recent years. Graham argued that there is a clear distinction between ordinary members contributing to a political fund and billionaires deploying vast personal fortunes.
She said “billionaires splashing out millions” presented a different problem from “everyday workers giving 10p a week to a political fund”. Her position gives the government political cover for tightening the rules while acknowledging that the new regime could eventually affect major domestic backers.
That distinction may not satisfy Reform UK. The party said “Labour and their union pals know they can’t win an election fairly so now they want to rig the system”. The accusation is designed to portray a technical change to donation law as a partisan manoeuvre rather than a response to public concern.
The political geometry is uncomfortable for Labour. It is seeking to narrow the influence of billionaires while relying on an organisation that has become one of its most important sources of cash. Yet Graham’s defence attempts to separate trade-union members from ultra-rich individuals and frame the proposed cap as a matter of democratic balance.
Can Reform keep the money?
Whether Reform UK will retain the full £72m remains unresolved. Robert Jenrick, the party’s economic spokesman, told the BBC that the donations were “entirely in line with the law as it is, and as far as we know, the law as it’s going to
