Sunak is either naive or just not telling the truth

Despite being asked repeatedly if he knew about Nadhim Zahawi’s issues with HMRC before he appointed him, all Rishi Sunak could say was that Zahawi’s tax affairs were not raised when he appointed him as Conservative Party chairman in October. Which is not a denial that he knew.

Given that it was published in the press months before October, the prime minister is either not telling the truth or he is blissfully unaware and naive of events around him. It beggars belief he would not have been told of such a damning revelation.

Geoff Forward

Stirling

I do not know if Rishi Sunak’s recently appointed ethics adviser is salaried or paid on a case–by–case basis, but in order to not burden the public purse any further I would like to offer this simple piece of ethical advice to Sunak free of charge. 

The Independent has given a compelling chronological account of Nadhim Zahawi’s attempts to use legal threats to close down a personally damaging story about his tax affairs, which was evidently in the public interest. Unless The Independent’s account of events is entirely fabricated, in which case one could reasonably assume that a man of Zahawi’s means would by now have resorted to the libel courts for redress, surely no reasonable person would conclude that Zahawi has not breached the ministerial code in a significant and egregious way? He should be sacked without further ado. As for Zahawi, it will be up to his constituents to be convinced of his “dog ate my tax returns” story come the next general election.

Ian Dust

Hertfordshire

Watching the government front bench, it is clear how Tory members view the opposition: that they are easily dealt with (or rather swatted).

Worse, it has become apparent that those same members do not believe that they are failing the inhabitants of this country in any way.

The comedic aspect of many members on the government benches is their demeanour. Intended to present the old paternalistic, landed, and hereditary Tory type. For those members referred to, their reality is far from the type that they intend to mimic. Taught and told who their betters are, the Tories of the day are not who they pretend to be, but actors who have not thought through their parts.

Our Tories of the day believe in their mimicry and feigned lisps that those below them, in their imaginary world, are to be ignored and alienated, perhaps a little despised. Certainly underestimated.

Where will they land, these new pretenders, currently with full pockets and growing contracts? Their truth seems apparent, they don’t believe their direction and actions to be unjust or dishonest.

Barbara Adams

Address Supplied

The National tells us that a majority of Scots think that “the Tory government” is responsible for the crisis in the NHS. Yet the NHS in Scotland is a devolved service for which the SNP/Green administration is entirely responsible. There is nothing new about this, the NHS in Scotland was devolved before there was ever devolution; effectively from the creation of the NHS in 1948.

Scots should be asking themselves why, when tax rates for middling, as well as higher earners, have risen yet again, there is little tangible return for the extra revenue that Holyrood should receive. In fact, the Scottish Fiscal Commission reports that Scotland’s economic performance has been so poor in recent years that where the new income tax rates should raise a further £994m this year, actual revenue will amount to only £325m. This is entirely due to SNP policies and is nothing to do with Westminster, Tories, or the UK.

Just think what the NHS could do with the extra £669m that has been lost because of SNP policies.

Jill Stephenson

Edinburgh

Rishi Sunak’s press secretary commenting on a legitimate inquiry concerning his tax affairs said the following "you wouldn’t expect me to get into the prime minister’s tax affairs, they are confidential", followed by “the tax affairs of an individual, irrespective of who they are, are confidential”.

While prime ministers are individuals, they occupy an office of unique status and power. What they are matters, irrespective of who they are. The “what” takes precedence. 

Those who wish for extraordinary public power should expect extraordinary public scrutiny. Of those powers, the ability to legislate and legally determine and demand tax is prominent, if not paramount.

Whoever they are they must demonstrate that they have paid what the law requires. Good information on their tax affairs should, by statutory requirement, be in the public domain. It is in the public interest that confidentiality is subordinated to acceptable evidence of probity.

One obvious proof is publication of a sequence of agreed tax returns. The nature of any current dispute with HMRC should also be notifiable.

It can be argued that those lawmakers who enjoy membership of either legislative chamber should be similarly obligated.

David Nelmes   

Newport