Thursday, April 28, 2022
Sunak investigation misses the point
In many ways the ministerial code over Rishi Sunak's wife’s tax affairs by the cabinet’s ethics adviser, Lord Geidt was a classic piece of misdirection.
The Guardian reports that the chancellor asked the adviser on ministerial interests to look into his case amid accusations he had failed to be transparent about the non-domicile tax status of his wife, Akshata Murty, which meant she did not legally have to pay UK tax on her foreign earnings. She has since said she will voluntarily pay the tax.
They add that Sunak was also forced to confirm he had a US green card and had declared himself a “permanent US resident” for tax purposes for 19 months while he was chancellor and for six years as an MP.
According to the paper, Lord Geidt told the Prime Minister: “I advise that the requirements of the ministerial code have been adhered to by the chancellor and that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation." However, it is his next sentence that is most relevant. He writes:
“In reaching these judgments, I am confined to the question of conflicts of interest and the requirements of the ministerial code. My role does not touch on any wider question of the merits of such interests or arrangements.”
Nobody was accusing Sunak of breaching the ministerial code. He chose to focus on that in an attempt to redefine the narrative. The accusations of poor political judgement and hypocrisy, still stand in my opinion, and nobody has published a report seeking to refute those.
The Guardian reports that the chancellor asked the adviser on ministerial interests to look into his case amid accusations he had failed to be transparent about the non-domicile tax status of his wife, Akshata Murty, which meant she did not legally have to pay UK tax on her foreign earnings. She has since said she will voluntarily pay the tax.
They add that Sunak was also forced to confirm he had a US green card and had declared himself a “permanent US resident” for tax purposes for 19 months while he was chancellor and for six years as an MP.
According to the paper, Lord Geidt told the Prime Minister: “I advise that the requirements of the ministerial code have been adhered to by the chancellor and that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation." However, it is his next sentence that is most relevant. He writes:
“In reaching these judgments, I am confined to the question of conflicts of interest and the requirements of the ministerial code. My role does not touch on any wider question of the merits of such interests or arrangements.”
Nobody was accusing Sunak of breaching the ministerial code. He chose to focus on that in an attempt to redefine the narrative. The accusations of poor political judgement and hypocrisy, still stand in my opinion, and nobody has published a report seeking to refute those.
