British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has suggested that it would have been “politically expedient” to sack cabinet member Nadim Zahawi, but has insisted that “due process” means allowing the investigation into his tax affairs to reach its conclusion. should go.
Sunak said he had not been given the full picture about the Tory chairman’s financial affairs when he told MPs last week that Mr Zahavi had given a “full” account.
He insisted on Wednesday that “no issue was raised with me” when he entered Number 10 and gave Mr Zahavi the job of minister without portfolio.
Downing Street was unable to say whether Mr Sunak feared more damaging surprises regarding Mr Zahavi’s tax affairs.
At Prime Minister’s Questions, he was challenged by Labor leader Keir Starmer, who claimed he was “weak” for sacking his party chairman.
Mr Sunak said: “Of course, the politically expedient thing for me would be to say that this matter should be resolved by Wednesday afternoon. But I believe in due process.”
Mr Sunak has ordered an inquiry into whether Mr Zahavi broke ministerial rules over an estimated £4.8m bill settled with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) while chancellor.
A week ago, Mr Sunak told MPs that Mr Zahavi had “already fully addressed the matter” – but Downing Street later revealed the prime minister was not aware the Conservative Party chairman had sent HMRC The fine was paid as part of the settlement.
Mr Sunak said: “Since I commented on the matter last week, more information has come into the public domain, including a statement by a minister without portfolio, which is why it is right that we establish the facts.”
Mr Starmer referenced Mr Sunak’s billionaire wife, Akshata Murthy, who holds non-domicile status, as he suggested the job at Number 10 is “too big” for Mr Sunak.
“We all know why the Prime Minister hesitated to ask his party president questions about family finances and tax evasion. But when the whole country is watching what is happening, his failure to sack him shows how weak he is – a prime minister overseeing chaos, overwhelmed at every turn,” Mr Starmer said.
The row raised questions about Mr Sunak’s own financial affairs, with his press secretary refusing to say whether the prime minister had also paid fines to HMRC after he refused to publish his tax returns in an effort to demonstrate transparency. Are preparing.
She described her tax affairs as “confidential”, before Number 10 later released a statement: “The Prime Minister never paid a fine to HMRC.”
The press secretary was unable to rule out the more damning revelations about Mr. Zahavi’s emergence as a sign of trust levels.
“I don’t think any of us can predict what might happen,” she said.
The dispute has centered on a tax bill over the sale of shares in YouGov, which Mr Zahavi founded, worth an estimated £27m, to Balshore Investments, an offshore registered company in Gibraltar linked to Mr Zahavi’s family.
