Will more jobs be outsourced to India after Rishi Sunak is the Chancellor?

[elsergiovolador]

Check out how many people cry in the comments:

Furlough cash for Rishi Sunak’s family firm | News | The Sunday Times

How they dared to point such thing out! Chancellor is giving free money and everyone should shut up!

[elsergiovolador]

Very intriguing is the fact that he only mentioned the word IR35 once.

Search for ir35 speaker:Rishi Sunak - TheyWorkForYou

Maybe he knows he needs to keep low profile when it comes to this and it was just a slip.

[elsergiovolador]

It’s quite vague though.

‘Might be thought’ and ‘close family’ are not well defined.
Why not put that complaint in? There are no men in suits to come get you and maybe Rishi will get a slap on the wrists.

That's very reassuring.

[Lance]

It’s quite vague though.

‘Might be thought’ and ‘close family’ are not well defined.
Why not put that complaint in? There are no men in suits to come get you and maybe Rishi will get a slap on the wrists.

[elsergiovolador]

seeing as you'd already found them I didn't see the point in trawling myself. You're the one who wants to know why.
I'm not doing the digging for you, just answering this question.


An MP doesn't have to disclose something an in-law has an interest in.

The ministerial code states: "Ministers must provide a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should also cover interests of the minister's spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict."

Similar things occured in the past (apologies for the source):

Minister failed to register brother-in-law's firm under his jurisdiction | Politics | The Guardian

Minister would have to recluse him or herself from the areas where the may be a conflict:

The justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly, has been stripped of his responsibility to regulate firms that "ambulance chase" the public following a Guardian investigation that revealed how he and his family could profit from controversial changes to legal aid he was piloting in parliament.

(apologies for the source again) Justice minister stripped of powers | Politics | The Guardian

[Lance]

I understand it is too difficult to open the document and see for yourself.

seeing as you'd already found them I didn't see the point in trawling myself. You're the one who wants to know why.
I'm not doing the digging for you, just answering this question.

Do we know why this is not listed here

https://assets.publishing.service.go...rests_list.pdf

Other MPs disclose what their in-laws are up to...

An MP doesn't have to disclose something an in-law has an interest in.

[Lance]

I understand it is too difficult to open the document and see for yourself.

There you go:

both of those are where his wife has an interest. That is why he is declaring it.

[elsergiovolador]

I understand it is too difficult to open the document and see for yourself.

There you go:

Mr Rees-Mogg’s wife and mother-in-law are both
beneficiaries and trustees of a discretionary trust. Mr
Rees-Mogg’s wife is a director and secretary of
Saliston Ltd.

[Lance]

It doesn't matter whether they have interest or not, it matters whether the public perceives they have interest.

If you read the document I posted earlier, you would notice that some MPs do post what their in-law are up to even if that is not related to their job.

What other MP discloses their in-laws business that they have no direct interest in?


this is like pulling teeth. What is it about my question that causes you not to answer?
If you don't know then say so. If you do know then please answer.

[elsergiovolador]

What other MP discloses their in-laws business that they have no direct interest in?

It doesn't matter whether they have interest or not, it matters whether the public perceives they have interest.

If you read the document I posted earlier, you would notice that some MPs do post what their in-law are up to even if that is not related to their job.