UK ministers prepare tighter residency test for major political donors

Government sets out a stricter test

Britain’s government is preparing amendments to the Representation of the People Bill that would require large individual donors to demonstrate an continuing physical presence in the United Kingdom. Ministers expect to table the changes during the bill’s House of Lords stages. The proposal could affect two £36 million donations recently announced by Reform UK because the government intends the restrictions to operate retrospectively. Reform says both contributions comply with the law currently in force.

The disputed donations

The £72 million combined contribution from cryptocurrency entrepreneurs Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne is unprecedented in British party finance. Both men have spent substantial periods overseas, making the timing and nature of their UK residency central to whether the proposed limits would apply. Nigel Farage acknowledged that future legislation might catch the money while maintaining that the donations were fully lawful when made. The unresolved question is therefore not simply where the donors are registered to vote, but whether they satisfy the government’s forthcoming residence standard.

Existing reform was already retrospective

The government announced in March that overseas electors would face an annual £100,000 cap, applying to donations made from March 25 even though the bill had not yet completed Parliament. Its July response to the Rycroft Review added a minimum-residency period: a person returning during 2026 would remain subject to the cap for the rest of that year and all of 2027. The newly planned amendment would further define the physical-presence requirement rather than create the entire framework from scratch.

Legal and political stakes

If the final legislation renders a donation impermissible, the recipient would have to return the excess after the relevant provisions commence. That creates an unusual risk for a party that may already have planned campaigning around the money. Reform argues that targeted retrospective changes threaten confidence in neutral election law. Ministers counter that advance notice without retrospective application would create a window in which donors could transfer funds before safeguards take effect. Parliament will have to weigh that anti-avoidance rationale against concerns about partisan rule-making.

What to watch in the Lords

The decisive details will be the amendment’s residency definition, reference date and evidentiary requirements. The Electoral Commission’s enforcement powers and the timetable for returning prohibited funds will also matter. Peers may additionally consider broader proposals for an overall donation cap and tighter control of campaign-spending limits. Until Parliament approves final text and regulators assess the donors’ circumstances, it would be premature to call either contribution unlawful. The confirmed development is the government’s decision to seek a more demanding residency rule capable of reaching already announced donations.