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!
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Will more jobs be outsourced to India after Rishi Sunak is the Chancellor?"
Collapse
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostIt’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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View Postseeing 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostI understand it is too difficult to open the document and see for yourself.
I'm not doing the digging for you, just answering this question.
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostDo 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...
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostIt 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostWhat other MP discloses their in-laws business that they have no direct interest in?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostSuch complaint to House of Commons must be made by a member of public or an MP and person complaining must disclose their full name and address.
I am guessing that nobody complained, because they are too afraid of being visited by men in suits.
Leave a comment:
-
Such complaint to House of Commons must be made by a member of public or an MP and person complaining must disclose their full name and address.
I am guessing that nobody complained, because they are too afraid of being visited by men in suits.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostWhat other MP discloses their in-laws business that they have no direct interest in?
This could potentially be reported to House of Commons as a breach of conduct and it will be up to them to investigate.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post"The List sets out interests currently held by Ministers, or their close family members, which
are additional to those already disclosed in the Parliamentary Registers and which are, or
might reasonably be perceived to be, directly relevant to a Minister’s ministerial
responsibilities."
It's what public sees. Trying to push the IR35 that is favourable to large outsourcing companies which one of them is in the family might reasonably be perceived to be directly relevant.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostBecause he doesn’t need to.....
What other MP discloses their in-laws business that they have no direct interest in?
are additional to those already disclosed in the Parliamentary Registers and which are, or
might reasonably be perceived to be, directly relevant to a Minister’s ministerial
responsibilities."
It's what public sees. Trying to push the IR35 that is favourable to large outsourcing companies which one of them is in the family might reasonably be perceived to be directly relevant.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: