London (Parliament Politic Magazine) – The leader of the UK, Rishi Sunak, didn’t say that his wife owns part of a company that takes care of kids. This company could get money from a new rule made by the government. A group that makes sure politicians follow rules said that Sunak broke the rules by not talking about this. A person named Daniel Greenberg, who watches that politicians follow rules, started checking Sunak on April 13. They looked at shares that Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murthy, has in a company called Koru Kids.
Government Makes a New Rule
The government has made a new rule that gives money to people who take care of kids. This was in the Budget, a plan about money. They would give £600 to new childminders (people who take care of kids when parents can’t) and £1,200 to those who join through a group. This news was in The Guardian.
On March 28, Sunak was asked about the rule for child care by other politicians in a meeting. But he didn’t tell them about his wife’s part in the company then. But later, on April 4, Sunak wrote a letter to another group of politicians saying that he knew about his wife’s part in the company. He also said he should have told about it earlier, but he didn’t. This was shared by Greenberg.
On Wednesday, the group that checks on politicians said that Sunak should have said that his wife owns part of the company when he was asked about the rule on March 28. But Greenberg also said that Sunak didn’t tell about his wife’s part in the company because he was confused about the rules for politicians to say what they own.
Watchdog Looks into The Matter
The watchdog finished looking into the matter by using a fixing process. This process can involve giving advice, asking the involved MP to say sorry, or fixing their list of money-related interests. In a letter to Greenberg, Sunak said sorry for mixing up the words about registering and telling. He said:
“On reflection, I accept your opinion that I should have used the letter to declare the interest explicitly… I apologise for these inadvertent errors and confirm acceptance of your proposal for rectification’’.
The House of Commons Standards Commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, started looking into a situation in April. Someone had complained about comments made by Sunak, and how he talked to a group of important MPs the month before.
Sunak didn’t tell those MPs or in a letter later on that his wife, Akshata Murthy, had shares in a company that takes care of children, and this company was going to get more money from the government. He said to Greenberg that he was told that his wife’s shares didn’t need to be mentioned on the list of things that ministers are involved in. But Greenberg didn’t agree. He said that this was something important that should have been told, and Sunak had a duty to fix his mistake.
Read More: BVI Delegation Visits UK Parliament To Build Strong Relations
Greenberg in Favor of Rishi Sunak
Greenberg thought that maybe Sunak didn’t do this on purpose. He might have been confused about what he was supposed to do.
The spokesperson for the prime minister said that everything was okay now. Moreover, prime minister takes it seriously to tell about all the important things he’s connected to. No doubt, the UK’s leader, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, was told by a group in the government that he should have told everyone about his wife’s ownership in a company that was going to get money from the government. This news came out on Thursday.
When Sunak became the leader, he promised to always do the right thing and be responsible. This was after the time when Liz Truss was leader for a short while, and there were problems during Boris Johnson’s time as leader.
But in the year he’s been in charge, Sunak got a fine from the police for not wearing a seatbelt, and he also got another fine for not following the rules of COVID lockdown when he was the money person (finance minister) under Johnson.
While serving at the Treasury, Sunak faced criticism when it was revealed that Murty, whose father was a co-founder of the Indian IT company Infosys, held a controversial “non-dom” status. This status allowed her to avoid reporting her earnings from dividends in the company for the purpose of UK taxation.