Angela Rayner made the comments on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg (Image: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Wire)
Angela Rayner has suggested ministers could still impose a cap on political donations in the wake of Reform UK’s £72 million gifts from two crypto-billionaires. The twin £36 million donations from Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne have reignited calls for a cap on donations, which Andy Burnham is said to have previously supported.
The Government did not accept amendments to its Representation of the People Bill last week that would have imposed a cap of £100,000 per year on donations from a single source. Ms Rayner suggested on Sunday this was due to concerns about “loopholes”, as she left open the possibility that ministers could still introduce a cap. She told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: “It’s not as simple as we’re saying we won’t put a cap.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Angela Rayner appeared to suggest Reform UK could be made to return the record donations worth £72 million in total (Image: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Wire)
The Government has told officials to examine how a cap would work, with Ms Rayner saying she wanted to stop people “being able to overpower and buy their way into democracy”.
In her interview, she also appeared to hint that Reform could be made to return the money due to new rules on overseas donations that will be back-dated to cover gifts since March.
Reform deputy leader Richard Tice warned of a “two-tier” system.
Angela Rayner and Robert Jenrick both appeared on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg (Image: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Wire)
He told The Telegraph: “Labour and their union pals know they can’t win an election fairly so now they want to rig the system.
“If the unions have their way, we’ll have a two-tier system that only allows major donations from the unions and no one else. Reform will be watching very closely.”
The new rules limit donations from overseas electors to £100,000 per year.
They were proposed in a review by former civil servant Philip Rycroft aimed at countering foreign influence in UK politics.
They also apply to donations made in the first year that someone moves back to the UK.
Mr Delo has been based in Hong Kong but said in April he would return to the UK to avoid restrictions on overseas donors, while Mr Harborne is based in Thailand.
Ms Rayner told the BBC: “With the retrospective action, anyone that’s received donations that don’t comply with what was in the Rycroft review, what legislation is currently going through Parliament, would have 60 days to return that money.
“That is not for those individuals, let me be really clear, I do not understand those individual circumstances, but that the retrospective action will apply from March 25.”
Reform’s economic spokesman Robert Jenrick told the BBC his party did not believe it would have to return the money once the new proposals become law.
He said: “These two donations are entirely in line with the law as it is, and as far as we know, the law as it’s going to be in the future.”
The twin donations offer Reform a boost after a difficult summer that included the launch of a criminal investigation into allegations it breached rules on political donations and a parliamentary probe into a separate £5 million gift from Mr Harborne to party leader Nigel Farage.
Mr Farage has said he intends to use the £72 million to fund “the best research and policy department British politics has ever seen” and recruit “the best minds in every area” to prepare for government.
Reform has also insisted the two men want “nothing” in exchange for the donations, and will not receive a knighthood, peerage or government contracts.
Mr Farage has long been a supporter of the cryptocurrency industry, and his party has announced a number of crypto-friendly policies.
Last year, Reform said it would slash taxes on crypto assets and set up a “Bitcoin reserve”, while the party also accepts donations in cryptocurrency.
But on Sunday, Mr Jenrick denied his party was “very pro-cryptocurrency”, saying he wanted to see “proper regulation” of the industry.
He told the BBC: “At the moment, it’s a wild west in many respects. What we want to see is good regulation here in the UK through the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) so we can protect people.”
Shadow foreign secretary Tom Tugendhat played down the potential impact of the money, saying it was “an illusion that people can buy their way into public office”.
Mr Tugendhat also criticised the cryptocurrency industry, telling Sky News: “The crypto industry has got many supporters, I know, including in Iran where they use it to buy weapons from Venezuela; including in Russia where they use it to launder money in order to pay agents around Europe.”
The Liberal Democrats have called for “emergency legislation” to impose a cap on donations.
The party’s Cabinet Office spokeswoman Lisa Smart said the donations to Reform exposed “a dangerous flaw in our democratic system”, adding: “People across the country will rightly ask whose interests Nigel Farage truly represents.”
Angela Rayner and the Debate Over Capping Political Donations
The debate over political donations in Britain has entered a new phase after Reform UK received a record £72 million from two cryptocurrency entrepreneurs. The donations, £36 million each from Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, have prompted renewed calls for tighter controls on political funding. Angela Rayner, the government minister responsible for democracy and elections, has indicated that ministers are considering further restrictions, including the possibility of a cap on political donations. The controversy has raised important questions about the role of wealthy individuals in British democracy, the funding of political parties and the balance between political freedom and the prevention of undue influence.
The two donations are the largest combined contributions ever made to a British political party. Reform UK has defended them as entirely legal under the rules currently in force. The party says the money will be used to strengthen its organisation, develop policy and prepare for the next general election. Its representatives argue that the donations will allow Reform to build the infrastructure required to compete with the much older Labour and Conservative parties.
The size of the donations, however, has generated concern among politicians and campaign groups. Critics argue that extremely large individual contributions can give wealthy donors a level of political influence that ordinary citizens cannot match. Stella Creasy, a Labour MP, has been among those calling for a £100,000 annual limit on most domestic political donations. Her proposed amendment was not put to a vote in the Commons after the government said it would establish a taskforce to examine how a donations cap could work.
Rayner has subsequently suggested that a cap remains under consideration. She has also emphasised that the government’s immediate legislative focus is on preventing foreign interference in British politics. The Representation of the People Bill contains measures that would restrict donations from certain overseas British electors to £100,000 a year and introduce residency requirements. The government has proposed applying some of these provisions retrospectively from 25 March 2026, the date of the publication of the Philip Rycroft review that examined electoral-law reforms.
This retrospective element is particularly significant for Reform UK. Both Delo and Harborne have previously been based outside Britain. Delo had been living in Hong Kong, while Harborne has been based in Thailand. Reform insists that the donations complied with the law at the time they were made. However, proposed legislation could impose stricter residency conditions on donors who are British citizens but live overseas or have recently returned to the UK.
The government therefore faces a difficult legal and political question. On one hand, ministers want to prevent people with weak or predominantly overseas connections from providing enormous sums to British political parties. On the other hand, changing the rules retrospectively can create concerns about fairness and legal certainty. Reform has argued that the donations were lawful under the existing rules and that changing the rules afterwards would be unfair.
The question of whether donations should be capped is broader than the Reform controversy. Britain’s political parties have historically relied on a mixture of membership fees, individual donations, trade-union contributions and other permitted sources of funding. Large donors have supported different parties over the years. Consequently, any new system would affect the political environment as a whole rather than only Reform UK.
Supporters of a donation cap argue that democracy should not depend excessively on the financial resources of a small number of wealthy individuals. A £72 million contribution can finance professional campaign staff, policy research, advertising, polling and local organisation on a scale that ordinary donors cannot replicate. From this perspective, limiting very large donations could reduce the potential for wealth to translate into disproportionate political influence.
Several campaign groups have made similar arguments. Transparency International UK has said that large donations can create concerns about undue influence, while other campaigners have called for broader reform of political finance. The Electoral Commission has also examined proposed amendments concerning overseas donors and donation limits, highlighting practical questions about how a cap could operate and how it would be enforced.
There are nevertheless arguments against imposing a strict limit. Political parties require substantial resources to operate, particularly during election campaigns. A new party without an established membership base may find it difficult to compete if large individual donations are prohibited. Reform argues that its major donors are helping to compensate for the financial advantages accumulated by established parties over many years. Richard Tice has described the donations as an attempt to create a more level playing field between Reform and Labour and the Conservatives.
This raises a fundamental question: what should count as political equality? One interpretation is that equality means preventing individuals from contributing very large amounts of money. Another is that political parties should be free to raise whatever legitimate funds they can, provided the donors meet legal requirements and the donations are transparent.
The debate becomes more complicated when trade unions are considered. Labour receives financial support from trade unions, whose members can contribute through membership subscriptions. Some Labour politicians and union leaders argue that union contributions are fundamentally different from a billionaire personally donating tens of millions of pounds. Reform unions themselves are divided over the question. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has supported a cap on individual donations, arguing that very large contributions go beyond what many people would regard as normal political participation. Other union leaders have expressed concern that restrictions could eventually be used by a future government to limit and some critics of Labour reject that distinction and argue that all major sources of political funding should be subject to comparable limits.
Trade unions themselves are divided over the question. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has supported a cap on individual donations, arguing that very large contributions go beyond what many people would regard as normal political participation. Other union leaders have expressed concern that restrictions could eventually be used by a future government to limit collective trade-union political activity.
This disagreement illustrates why designing a donation cap is not straightforward. A simple £100,000 limit could affect individuals, companies the government wants to consider the issue carefully. She has argued that a straightforward cap could potentially be circumvented. The government therefore wants, trade unions or other organisations differently. Policymakers would have to decide whether the same rules should apply to all donors and whether multiple donations could be channelled through associated organisations to avoid the limit.
The possibility of loopholes is one reason Rayner has indicated that the government wants to consider the issue carefully. She has argued that a straightforward cap could potentially be circumvented. The government therefore wants to examine how restrictions could be designed so that they actually achieve their intended purpose.
Another option would be greater public funding for political parties. Under such a system, parties could receive more state support in exchange for restrictions on private donations. Advocates argue that this could reduce dependence on wealthy individuals. Critics could respond that taxpayers might then be required to fund political parties they do not support.
The question of public funding is particularly sensitive because political parties are voluntary organisations representing competing political viewpoints. Some voters may regard state funding as a necessary cost of maintaining democratic competition, while others may see it as an inappropriate use reducing spending limits could restrict the extent to which any party can convert financial resources into campaign activity. The government has already indicated that it believes existing spending limits for parties and candidates may be of public money.
There is also the issue of spending limits. Even if donations were capped, a political party could potentially accumulate substantial funds from thousands of smaller donors. Conversely, reducing spending limits could restrict the extent to which any party can convert financial resources into campaign activity. The government has already indicated that it believes existing spending limits for parties and candidates may be too high.
Spending limits could therefore become an important part of the wider reform package. Donation limits regulate how and has presented itself as a challenger to the established parties. Its £72 million donations provide substantial resources for campaigning and organisational development. The government, meanwhile much money enters the political system, while spending limits regulate how much parties can actually use during campaigns. Policymakers may need both mechanisms to prevent wealthy donors from simply replacing one large donation with thousands of smaller contributions.
The political context makes the issue especially sensitive. Reform UK has been gaining prominence and has presented itself as a challenger to the established parties. Its £72 million donations provide substantial resources for campaigning and organisational development. The government, meanwhile, is attempting to introduce electoral reforms concerning overseas donations and other aspects of political participation.
Reform has accused Labour of trying to change the rules because it is concerned about Reform’s growing influence. Government ministers reject the suggestion that the reforms are specifically targeted at the party. Rayner has argued that the government’s objective is to protect British democracy from foreign interference and ensure that political influence is connected to people with a genuine connection to the country.
The controversy is therefore partly about policy and partly about trust. If voters believe that new rules are designed specifically to disadvantage a particular political party, confidence in the electoral system could be weakened. On the other hand, if voters believe that wealthy individuals can effectively purchase disproportionate political influence, confidence can also suffer.
This is why transparency and independent oversight are important. Political donations need to be declared accurately, and the relevant authorities need sufficient powers to investigate potential breaches. The current controversy surrounding Reform’s donations has already attracted scrutiny over the donors’ residency status and the possible application of new rules.
Ultimately, the objective of political-finance reform should be clearly defined. If the concern is foreign interference, residency and nationality rules may be appropriate. If the concern is excessive influence by wealthy individuals, a domestic donations cap may be more relevant. If the concern is excessive campaign spending, spending limits may be the most direct instrument. These are related but distinct problems.
The £72 million donations have therefore created an unusually strong test for Britain’s political-finance system. They were lawful under the rules in place when they were made, according to Reform, but proposed legislation could introduce stricter requirements affecting donors with overseas connections. The government has also indicated that it remains open to broader reforms, including consideration of a cap on donations.
In conclusion, Angela Rayner’s comments have reopened a longstanding debate about the relationship between money and democracy. The unprecedented £72 million contribution to Reform UK has demonstrated how much financial power a very small number of individuals can potentially place behind a political party. Supporters of Reform argue that such funding enables a newer party to compete with established organisations, while critics argue that extremely large donations risk giving wealthy individuals disproportionate influence.
A political donations cap could address some of these concerns, but it would also create new questions about enforcement, trade-union funding, small-donor participation and public financing. Retrospective legislation raises additional questions about legal certainty and fairness. The’s £72 million should be accepted or rejected. It is what kind of political-finance system Britain wants in the long term. Any new rules should ideally apply consistently across parties, be transparent about their objectives and contain safeguards against loopholes. The debate triggered government must therefore balance the desire to protect the political system with the rights of individuals and organisations to participate in democratic politics.
The most important issue is not simply whether Reform’s £72 million should be accepted or rejected. It is what kind of political-finance system Britain wants in the long term. Any new rules should ideally apply consistently across parties, be transparent about their objectives and contain safeguards against loopholes. The debate triggered by Reform’s record donations provides an opportunity to examine those questions in detail.
Whether Parliament ultimately introduces a general cap, tighter residency rules, lower campaign-spending limits, greater public funding, or some combination of these measures remains a matter for the legislative process. What is clear is that the scale of recent donations has made political funding a major issue in Britain’s democratic debate, and the decisions made now could shape how future elections are financed.