Is Lord Ashcroft "non-domiciled"?

Conservative HQ smooths over Sir George Young's comments on Newsnight.

Does Lord Ashcroft pay tax in the UK?

It's a question that has posed a difficulty for senior Tories over the past few weeks, as they struggle to give a clear yes or no answer to journalists who, enthused by their obvious discomfort, harangue them about it at every opportunity.

And now it looks like Sir George Young, shadow leader of the House of Lords, may have inadvertently given us an answer last night on Newsnight. Young was fresh from his rather evasive appearance on Monday's Today programme.

Discussion got heated as the presenter Emily Maitlis and the Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, rounded on him, demanding a yes or no in response to the "simple question". "He pays tax," insisted Young.

But then came the key soundbite (you can watch a video of the whole encounter here):

He is in the same position as a number of Labour peers who are non-domiciled and who fund the Labour Party.

To all intents and purposes, it appears that in this sentence, Young is describing Ashcroft as a non-dom. However, things are not always as they seem.

The Guardian quotes a Conservative Party spokesman as saying: "Sir George doesn't know Lord Ashcroft's tax status. He was only making the comparison that the Labour Party face their own questions about their donors."

It is, of course, possible that Young "misspoke", as Tory sources say, put off his stride by the rather aggressive nature of the questioning. Senior figures in the party have consistently stuck to David Cameron's line last December, that "Lord Ashcroft's tax status is a matter between him and the Inland Revenue".

One thing we can be certain of is that ten years after Ashcroft was made a life peer and gave "assurances" over his tax status, this storm shows no sign of blowing over.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.