Markus Andrews

Sajid Javid used an offshore trust while working as an MP in the heart of the Treasury – but did not declare it in the register of members’ interests, The Independent can reveal.As the then chancellor George Osborne’s parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in 2011, Mr Javid – now health secretary – played a key role in selling the Coalition government’s austerity policies to MPs.But at the same time, Mr Javid was using a trust, understood to have been located in a tax haven, to cut his personal tax burden. He also served in the Treasury while the government launched a consultation on policies covering non-doms and overseas trusts in December 2011.Earlier this month, Mr Javid admitted he had used non-dom status before entering politics and to having had an offshore trust, but it is only now that it has been revealed that he did not declare the trust as an MP and PPS.The ministerial code states that while PPSs, who act as ministerial aides, are not technically members of the government “they must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their role as a parliamentary private secretary, and their private interests”.It was only on becoming a government minister in 2012 that former banker Mr Javid revealed more details on the extent of his overseas assets and how they were managed.”If Sajid Javid held money in an offshore trust while he was part of the Treasury, it would raise further questions about decision making in this government,” said James Murray, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury.“It is rank hypocrisy for senior ministers to defend the tax hike hitting working people this year, when they have spent so many years avoiding their fair share of tax themselves.”Earlier this month Mr Javid admitted he had used non-dom status to cut his tax bill after The Independent revealed that Akshata Murty, the chancellor’s wife, exploited the same route to cut her tax bill in the UK. Ms Murty subsequently decided to pay tax on her worldwide income in the UK, but has retained non-dom status.Offshore trusts and use of non-dom status are entirely legal methods of limiting taxes.Mr Javid’s trust was not listed in his entry in the register of members’ interests in 2011, but he did declare a shareholding in Deutsche Bank, his former employer.A spokesman for Mr Javid declined to say if the assets in the trust – which Mr Javid said in a statement he dissolved in 2012 – included these Deutsche Bank shares as well as other assets, including shares in different companies. They also declined to say whether this trust was operated as a blind trust or under a blind management arrangement, or say where it was located.The health secretary did not collapse the offshore trust until the year after he entered the Treasury. He stopped making use of the controversial non-dom tax status in 2009, before entering politics.“Sajid has been very open and transparent about his previous tax status in the UK and when he lived abroad. He has nothing further to add,” a spokesman for the health and social care secretary said.When he dissolved his trust, Mr Javid, incurred a rate of 50 per cent tax, which he claimed offset any “accrued benefit” from the financial arrangement. He also said that he had always declared the information required by tax, governmental, and parliamentary authorities.“The public has a right to know which ministers have benefited from tax avoidance arrangements and how much money they have saved as a result,” Mr Murray said.“While the Tories are raising taxes on working people as inflation and energy bills soar, Labour would make the tax system fairer. We would abolish the outdated ‘non-dom’ system, so that everyone who makes their home in Britain pays tax here on all their income,” he added.The fresh examination of the timeline laid out by Mr Javid reveals he was at the government’s political front line, selling tough austerity policies to Tory backbenchers in the aftermath of the financial crisis, while exploiting mechanisms to protect his wealth.During his time as a banker, Mr Javid – himself a former chancellor – was linked to Dark Blue Investments, an employee benefit trust in which staff were paid share bonuses via trusts to avoid tax. The supreme court ruled that tax ought to be paid on these bonuses.Experts have queried Mr Javid’s use of non-dom status, given that he was born in the UK and therefore would have had to declare that he did not intend to live in the country in the long term. More

Tory councillors have been reprimanded over a “negative and vindictive” election campaign thought to have triggered online antisemitic abuse against a rival candidate, following an independent QC-led inquiry ordered by Conservative head office.In the run-up to a 2020 by-election in Hertfordshire’s Hertsmere Council, a fake newspaper front page alleging Labour candidate Dan Ozarow supported Hezbollah appeared on an electronic billboard outside the railway station in commuter town Borehamwood.The allegation was also included in official Conservative leaflets distributed in the ward – which has a large Jewish population and is in MP Oliver Dowden’s constituency – in the days before the ballot.Dr Ozarow, who is Jewish, said he felt “terrorised” by a stream of antisemitic abuse and death threats directed at him and his family on social media as the campaign reached its climax.A 104-page submission to the investigation included posts in which he was told to “go to the gas chambers” and told that he “lacked a Jewish soul”. Several posts were reported to Hertfordshire Police as hate crimes.Conservative co-chair Ben Elliot has now accepted the recommendations of a panel of party members, led by independent QC Richard Price OBE, which found that Councillors Brett Rosehill – who won the by-election – Glenn Briski and Paul Morris were “party to a personal campaign against the claimant in relation to the 2020 by-election, and which continued for many months”.It also concluded that “this negative campaigning may well have encouraged others to send antisemitic posts or messages to the complainant”.The panel also condemned the billboard posting as “unnecessary and vindictive” and a “clear example of negative campaigning in support of Conservative candidate Brett Rosehill”.And it found that council Conservative group leader Morris Bright, who should have “taken steps to rein in the activities of these councillors at an early stage” and made similar criticisms of election agent Jane West. All five have received formal reprimands from Mr Elliot and ordered to attend training seminars.Dr Ozarow, who lost the by-election but was later elected a Labour councillor, said he was “delighted” by the findings. He said: “No-one should have to suffer like my family and I did and it really saddened me to hear Jewish people from other parties telling me that they were too frightened to stand for election because of what happened.”Hertsmere Labour group leader, Cllr Jeremy Newmark said: “I commend the Conservative Party for this full and robust investigatory process. What matters now is what will actually be done about the findings?“Will there be sanctions, training and disciplinary measures? Or will this now be left to gather dust?”A spokesperson for Hertsmere Conservative Association said: “We are deeply concerned to note that Hertsmere Labour Party have decided to publish the findings of an investigation while the process of appeal by those named is still continuing. “The named individuals – four out of five of whom are proud members of the Jewish community – are hurt and dismayed over what are clearly politically motivated claims of antisemitism from Labour. “Further comment will be made after the appeal process has reached its conclusion.”There was no immediate response to a request for comment from the Conservative Party nationally. More

The government has refused to say how many Russians sanctioned because of their links to the Kremlin benefit from UK non-dom tax status, as calls grow to scrap the perk.Ministers claimed they were trying to “protect taxpayers money” by not revealing the extent of the breaks, an excuse opposition MPs described as “absurd”.Opposition MPs have sent a series of parliamentary written questions to ministers but were told it would be too much work to provide an answer.The information is held by HMRC because they know the nationality of people with non-dom status and the identity of people hit by sanctions – but ministers say they could only put it together for release at “disproportionate cost”“The extensive work that would have been needed to provide the information requested would have greatly exceeded the disproportionate cost threshold for parliamentary questions, as set out in government guidance. This threshold is rightly in place to protect taxpayers’ money,” a government spokesperson told The Independent. It comes as the Liberal Democrats bring forward a bill which would force the Chancellor and other government ministers to reveal whether they or any member of their household has ever claimed the tax break.The Independent reported earlier this month that Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty had the status, a revelation that caused a storm and led to her giving it up.Under non-domiciled status people resident in Britain do not have to pay UK tax on their overseas earning, but the perk is only available to wealthy people willing to drop a £30,000 fee on the privilege. As a result it only makes financial sense for people with very high incomes.Labour has called for the status to be scrapped and replaced with a less extensive scheme more in line with other European countries.Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesperson Christine Jardine told The Independent: “It’s crucial that the government comes clean on how many sanctioned Russian oligarchs previously benefited from non-dom status. “The lack of transparency over whether Putin’s cronies were allowed to use these loopholes is staggering.“It’s also absurd for the government to claim it would be too costly to provide this information, when this is about ensuring people pay their fair share of tax.”Sunlight is the best disinfectant – the Conservative Government must provide clarity on how non-dom status is being used, and by who.” More

The Government’s social mobility tsar has been criticised for comments implying that girls do not study A-level science because they dislike “hard maths”.Katharine Birbalsingh told a meeting of the Science and Technology Committee to discuss diversity in Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects that girls do not seem to “fancy” physics as much as other subjects.She said that in chemistry, biology and maths at her school, the Michaela Community School in Brent, girls make up the majority of students at A-level apart from in physics, where 16% study the subject.She told MPs: “Physics isn’t something girls tend to fancy – they don’t want to do it, they don’t like it. It wouldn’t be something here that they don’t choose because they feel it’s not for them, that would certainly not be the case, and it wouldn’t be the case here that they wouldn’t choose it because they didn’t have a good physics teacher.“I just think they don’t like it. There’s a lot of hard maths in there that I think that they would rather not do, and that’s not to say that there isn’t hard stuff to do in biology and chemistry.”Asked about why girls specifically would not do physics, she said: “In research generally people say it’s a natural thing – I mean I don’t know, I’m not an expert in that sort of thing, but that’s what they say.“I don’t think there’s anything external – when it comes to our kids… they’re being taught very well, they are doing well at GCSE and they choose the subjects that they want to do.“We’re certainly not out there campaigning for more girls to do physics; we wouldn’t do that and I wouldn’t want to do that because I don’t mind that there’s only 16% of them taking [it], I want them to do what they want to do.”Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman Munira Wilson said Ms Birbalsingh should apologise for her comments.The MP said: “Sadly, stories like this are all too common nowadays. The Conservatives have been dragging their feet and failed to challenge the culture of misogyny and unconscious biases in our education system for years.“Every child deserves the chance to thrive and follow their passions during their time at school. However, without a dramatic culture shift, so many young women will be continually undervalued and demotivated.“The Government must finally step up to the plate and act. We need new measures to challenge these biases, backed up by legislation, and Katharine Birbalsingh should apologise for her remarks.”Meanwhile, Ms Birbalsingh said there is no issue with the number of ethnic minority pupils taking Stem subjects but rather a shortage of those choosing subjects such as philosophy, theology and history.“If you come from an immigrant background, and especially if you’re coming from a poorer background and you’ve managed to do well in school, you’re more likely to want to pursue a career that brings more certainty with it,” she said.“So when you’re doing sciences you think ‘Oh I’m going to become a doctor’, ‘I’m going to work as a lab assistant’ – those are more certain professions.”Those from a more privileged background might decide to become a poet, actor or writer, she said, “professions that are less secure and far less obvious in their financial reward, and in the eyes of success from family members or community members and so on, you become a poet, people think, ‘What?’ whereas if you become a doctor that’s something people would admire”.She said this is why her school is not persuading pupils to do physics but is trying to urge them to do philosophy or history.She also told the committee that rather than addressing a lack of ethnic minority women in science, “we need to address good teaching and good schools generally”.She said improved schools would see an increased uptake in science from underrepresented groups “because those vulnerable groups are the ones who are hit hardest by perhaps poor discipline, poor teaching and so on”. More

Rishi Sunak has defended his block on spending to ease the cost of living crisis, arguing it would force up mortgage bills which would be wrong for “our kids”.Government borrowing would rise, which would mean higher interest and mortgage rates, if he gave way to pressure to turn on the spending caps, the chancellor insisted.Mr Sunak has been accused of refusing to help families hit hardest by soaring inflation and everyday bills, in order to store up pre-election tax cuts for voters in 2024. More

Keir Starmer calls Boris Johnson the ‘Comical Ali’ of the cost of living crisisIt would be a “sackable offence” for MPs to watch pornography in the Commons, a Labour spokesman has said following the news that the Conservative Party is investigating claims one of its own MPs watched adult content while in the chamber.On Tuesday night, a group of around 12 female Tory MPs reportedly met Chris Heaton-Harris, the Tory chief whip, to complain about sexism in parliament, with one claiming she was sat next to a male colleague when he began watching porn in the Commons.Various Tory MPs have since called for swift action on the matter. Northern Ireland minister Conor Burns said “decisive action” would be taken “if the facts are established”. Meanwhile, Pauline Latham suggested any MP found to have committed such an act would have to resign. “It’s just not excusable in any way,” she told GB News.The revelations come amid an ongoing misogyny row in Westminster, sparked by the publication of a Mail on Sunday article in which a Tory MP suggested deputy labour leader Angela Rayner crossed and uncrossed her legs in parliament to distract Boris Johnson. Show latest update

1651071186Watching porn in Commons ‘sackable offence’, says Labour Following my earlier post about Labour’s response to the investigation into a Tory MP watching porn in the Commons (2.22pm), here’s Adam Forrest with more detail:Sam Hancock27 April 2022 15:531651070607Tories criticised for allowing convicted Tory paedophile place on sex abuse panelMoving away from the Tory misogyny row for a moment, a survivor of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal has criticised the Conservative Party for asking an MP found guilty this month of molesting a teenage boy to review a Home Office research paper on child sexual exploitation.This is the same allegation Boris Johnson refused to apologise for during PMQs earlier (see post from 12.43pm). Sammy Woodhouse said she was “disgusted” that she was put in the position of working with Imran Ahmad Khan on an expert panel while he was under police investigation. Ms Woodhouse, who was targeted, groomed and abused as a teenager in Rotherham, said on Wednesday: “This was important work that I undertook in good faith, but I am disgusted to have been put in a position where I was working with a man later convicted for child sexual assault.“Knowing now that the Conservatives had already received complaints from a victim about this man, it is gut-wrenching for me as a survivor that they could possibly have allowed him to be considered for this role.”Khan, 48, was found guilty earlier this month of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old in 2008 before he was elected as the Tory MP for Wakefield. He reportedly attended several online meetings of sexual exploitation experts in 2020 and peer-reviewed a research paper entitled “Group-based child sexual exploitation characteristics of offending”.The victim, now 29, told a court he contacted the Tory Party press office days before the December 2019 general election to tell them what Khan had done to him, and made a complaint to police days after the poll.A Home Office spokesperson insists that neither home secretary Priti Patel nor the Home Office were aware of the allegations against Khan before they became public last year, and that he never directly advised the department on policy related to child sexual exploitation. More

Labour leader Keir Starmer believes watching pornography in the Commons is a “sackable offence”, as the Conservatives investigate claims a Tory MP was viewed porn in the chamber.The Tory chief whip is probing allegations that a Tory MP watched an adult video on his mobile phone in the chamber after two female colleagues raised the matter on Tuesday evening.Asked if Sir Keir had any views on the matter, a Labour spokesman said: “Yeah – it’s a sackable offence.”Tory MP Pauline Latham said any MP found to have watched porn in the House would have to resign, while Tory minister Conor Burns said “decisive” action would be taken if the facts were established.Chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris is looking into the allegations of “wholly unacceptable” action, with a spokeswoman vowing on Wednesday that “action will be taken”.Reports indicate that the female Tory MP who claimed she was sitting next to a colleague watching porn is a government minister. Another MP is said to have corroborated the minister’s claim.But it has not been established whether the male MP at the centre of the allegations is a frontbencher.Tuesday evening’s meeting on sexism was attended by between 40 and 50 Tory MPs, including Mr Heaton-Harris, Tory party chairman Oliver Dowden and Commons leader Mark Spencer, according to The Mirror.It followed outrage over the Mail On Sunday publishing “sexist” and disputed claims from unnamed Tory MPs that deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner tried to distract Boris Johnson with her legs during PMQs.Former prime minister Theresa May also attended the meeting, but was understood not to have been present when the porn allegations were made.Asked about porn claims and possible disciplinary action, Mr Burns, the Northern Ireland minister, told the BBC: “The chief whip is investigating. It is wrong … I’m not going to even attempt to defend that.”Mr Burns added: “The chief whip’s job is to establish the facts. And if facts are established then action should be taken decisively, and will be.”Ms Latham suggested any MP or minister found to have watched porn in the chamber would have to resign. “They should go,” the Tory MP told GB News.She added: “That will mean their ministerial career is absolutely shot and their parliamentary career probably. It’s just not excusable in any way. It’s totally shocking.”Labour MP Pat McFadden suggested on BBC Politics Live there would be a “kicking out” if someone from his party was found to have watched porn in the chamber.SNP MP Kirsty Blackman added: “The level of entitlement that you have to sit in the chamber and watch porn – I mean that is taking everything for granted. They’ve been elected to represent their constituents not to sit in the chamber and watch porn.”Asked whether watching pornography at work was a sackable offence, Mr Johnson’s press secretary said: “I am not aware of the disciplinary action. Obviously, it is wholly unacceptable behaviour and it is being looked into.”It follows a report in the Sunday Times that 56 MPs who have been referred to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) in relation to about 70 separate complaints, it reported.No 10 would not be drawn on reports three cabinet ministers are under investigation by the IGCS over sexual misconduct claims, and would not say whether the Tory party was looking into the claims separately.“We obviously take all such allegations extremely seriously but there is an independent process in place and it is right not to speak on its behalf,” the PM’s press secretary said.Do you think MPs should be suspended over misogyny? Cast your vote in our reader poll below and let us know what you think in the comments. More

Independent readers have given their verdict on Priti Patel’s plan to send asylym seekers to Rwanda, with overhwelming disapproval. The Home Secretary’s scheme has been met with criticism from all sides including Labour, Tory MPs including former prime minister Theresa May, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and even Home Office staff.And the majority of readers agree, with 86 per cent opposing the plan. In a poll, readers were asked: Do you back the Home Office’s Rwanda plan? There were 605 entries; 86 people said yes, 518 said no and one person chose the option ‘Not sure’.The story sparked fierce discussion in the comments section.One user with the name Annuka02 said the policy was “highly disturbing”, “repulsive” and “totally shocking revealing no respect or value for human life. They added: “A scary insight into the mindset of this Government. People are not commodities who can be deported and exiled on a one way ticket. At this present moment in time I find it shameful to be British! This policy is absolutely not in my name.”However, another commenter, HONESTDAVE, appeared to back the policy. He said: “We should only take genuine refugees not those coming just because they feel like it. The British way of life is being seriously destroyed by uncontrolled imigration, it must be stopped.”Ms Patel previously called her plan “bold and innovative”, challenging those against her plan to send migrants to Rwanda to come up with a better idea to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel.Commenter Christoper Painter offered his own idea. He said: “The solution is as follows and it is not so complicated: At the moment the UK has a need for labour in all areas. There are 1.1 million job vacancies. “Rather than sending these young men to disused oil rigs in the North Sea, the Ascension Islands or wuanda (at exorbitant financial and ethically dubious costs ) the UK government should establish hostels where these young men are trained in jobs that that the country needs. “Only after they have been trained, can speak English, and have worked and contributed to the system for at least three years do they have the right to access the normal services our welfare state provides – including the NHS – and choose another profession, if they wish.“ Our welfare state was conceived as a generation concept; it does not allow for excessive rates of immigration.”What do you think? Let us know in the comments below. Here’s how to join the conversation. More