The £72m donated to Reform UK by cryptocurrency billionaires Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne has prompted debate about political donations, overseas British citizens and proposed changes to electoral law. Each donor gave £36m, and Reform UK says the donations comply with the law as it currently stands and with the rules expected to be introduced.
The central question is not simply whether the donations are politically controversial. It is whether money that was legally donated under the rules in force at the time should subsequently be affected by changes to those rules. There are arguments on both sides, and a fair assessment requires consideration of both the legal position and the concerns behind the proposed restrictions.
Why The Donations May Be OK
The strongest argument in favour of the donations is that Reform UK says they were made lawfully under the existing rules. Robert Jenrick, the party's economic spokesman, said Reform does not expect to return the money because it believes the donations comply with both the current law and the rules that are expected to come into force.
From this perspective, a political party and its donors are entitled to rely on the rules that apply when a donation is made. If the relevant requirements permitted British citizens living overseas to make such donations at the time, there is an argument that subsequently changing those requirements should not automatically transform an earlier lawful donation into an unlawful one.
The circumstances of the donors are also relevant to the debate. Both Delo and Harborne are British citizens, although they had spent periods living outside the UK. Delo subsequently returned to Britain, with Jenrick saying that his return was partly connected with complying with changes to the law.
There is also an argument that Parliament is entitled to change electoral law when it believes existing rules are insufficient. If the proposed restrictions become law, political parties and donors would have to follow the new requirements. The fact that Parliament is considering tighter rules does not by itself establish that donations made under the previous rules were unlawful.
Why The Donations May Not Be OK
The principal argument against the donations concerns the influence that very large contributions can give wealthy individuals over political parties and, potentially, democratic politics. The two contributions together amount to £72m, making them the largest individual contributions to a UK political party.
The government argues that restrictions are necessary because of concerns about political donations from British citizens living overseas and people who have recently returned to the UK. Its proposed rules would limit donations from British citizens living overseas to £100,000 and introduce a £100,000 limit for certain recent returnees.
The government's position is that the proposed changes should apply retrospectively. Angela Rayner has said that anyone whose donations do not comply with the rules being introduced would have to return the money. If Parliament ultimately establishes such a legal requirement, the question would therefore become whether particular donations fall within the scope of the new rules.
There is also a wider concern about the scale of political donations. Rayner has said the government wants to prevent wealthy individuals from exercising excessive influence over democracy through political funding. From this perspective, the issue is not merely whether the donors technically complied with the rules at the time, but whether the existing rules provided adequate protection against disproportionate financial influence.
The Legal Question About Retrospective Rules
Retrospective application is at the heart of the debate. Reform UK maintains that its donations comply with the law, while the government has said the proposed restrictions are intended to apply retrospectively.
A distinction therefore needs to be made between what is currently lawful and what Parliament may decide should be lawful in future. The proposed Representation of the People Bill has been approved by MPs but still has to be considered by the House of Lords before it can become law.
Until the legislation has completed that process, the final legal position cannot be assumed. Whether any particular donation would have to be returned would depend on the wording of the legislation that ultimately becomes law and how those provisions apply to the circumstances of the donation.
The Argument About Fairness
Supporters of Reform's position can argue that fairness requires people and organisations to be judged according to the law that applied when they acted. On that view, changing the rules after a donation has been made should not necessarily impose a new obligation on the donor or recipient.
Those supporting the government's approach can argue that Parliament must be able to respond when it identifies weaknesses in electoral law. If existing rules allow exceptionally large donations from people living overseas, a government may consider tighter restrictions necessary to protect confidence in the political system.
These positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible to accept that a donation was lawful when made while also believing that the rules governing future donations should be considerably stricter.
Why The Final Position Matters
The debate also involves questions beyond Reform UK. The proposed restrictions concern political donations more generally and could affect other parties and donors if they become law.
At the same time, the specific circumstances surrounding Delo and Harborne have attracted particular attention because of the unprecedented size of their contributions. Reform UK has maintained that it has done nothing wrong, while the government has argued that stronger safeguards are required.
There are also separate investigations and scrutiny involving Reform's fundraising. Police have announced an investigation into allegations that the party breached political donation rules, which Reform denies. Nigel Farage is also being investigated by the parliamentary standards commissioner concerning whether he should have declared a £5m gift from Harborne before the 2024 general election, with both Reform UK and Farage denying wrongdoing.
A Balanced View Of The Debate
The case for accepting the £72m donations rests primarily on the existing legal position and the principle that donations should be assessed under the rules applicable when they were made. Reform UK says the contributions complied with those rules and does not expect to return the money.
The case against accepting them focuses on the extraordinary scale of the donations, concerns about the political influence of wealthy individuals and the government's argument that existing rules need strengthening. The proposed retrospective restrictions make the issue particularly contentious because they raise a question about how Parliament should treat donations made before new requirements take effect.
Ultimately, the key legal issue will depend on the final legislation and how its provisions apply to the donations concerned. Until Parliament has completed consideration of the proposed changes, it is important to distinguish between allegations, political arguments and established legal requirements. The Reform UK £72m donations therefore remain a legitimate subject for debate from both perspectives, with the strongest arguments on each side depending on the balance between reliance on existing law and the protection of democratic safeguards.
Do write and share your reflections upon this matter…
0 Comments