The Prime Minister has backed Angela Rayner after she admitted she underpaid stamp duty on a seaside flat she bought.
Sir Keir Starmer said he was “very proud to sit alongside” his deputy at Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions and said her move to refer herself to the independent ethics adviser was “the right thing to do”.
Ms Rayner, who is also the Housing Secretary, said she has been “in shock” and “devastated” over the fallout from her property arrangements and that she had spoken to her family about quitting.
She said she had received inaccurate tax advice before buying a flat in Hove in May 2025.
Sir Keir told MPs: “She has explained her personal circumstances in detail. She’s gone over and above in setting out the details, including Mr Speaker, yesterday afternoon, asking a court to lift a confidentiality order in relation to her own son.
“I know from speaking at length to the Deputy Prime Minister just how difficult that decision was for her. But she did it to ensure that all information is in the public domain.
“She has now referred herself to the independent adviser. That is the right thing to do.
“But I can be clear, I am very proud to sit alongside a Deputy Prime Minister who is building 1.5 million homes, who is bringing the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for generations, and who has come from a working-class background to become Deputy Prime Minister.”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “I remember when the Prime Minister said tax evasion is a criminal offence, and should be treated as all other fraud. If he had a backbone, he would sack her.”
Ms Rayner has been under intense pressure over her tax affairs after media reports about her purchase of the property.
She was reported to have saved £40,000 in stamp duty on the flat because she removed her name from the deeds of a family property in her Ashton-under-Lyne constituency, meaning the Hove property is the only property she owns.
In a statement on Wednesday, she said she had taken legal advice when she bought the south coast flat, which suggested she was “liable to pay standard stamp duty” but had then sought “further advice from a leading tax counsel” following headlines about the arrangement.
She learned that the initial advice had been inaccurate and that she was liable to pay additional stamp duty.
That is because she had put her stake in her constituency home in Ashton into a trust set up in 2020 for her disabled son.
Tax experts said the Hove property could not be treated as her only residence because of the nature of the trust.
In the statement, Ms Rayner said: “I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities.
“I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase. I am working with expert lawyers and with HMRC to resolve the matter and pay what is due.
“The arrangements I have set out reflect the reality that family life is rarely straightforward, particularly when dealing with disability, divorce and the complexities of ensuring your children’s long-term security. Every decision I have made has been guided by what I believe to be in my children’s best interests.
“I deeply regret the error that has been made. I am committed to resolving this matter fully and providing the transparency that public service demands.
“It is for that reason I have today referred myself to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and will provide him with my fullest co-operation and access to all the information he requires.”
Ms Rayner had been prevented from disclosing information about her property arrangements by a court order, but applied to the court and was given permission to discuss the matter publicly on Tuesday night.
Asked whether she had considered resigning, Ms Rayner told Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast: “I’ve been in shock, really, because I thought I’d done everything properly, and I relied on the advice that I received, and I’m devastated because I’ve always upheld the rules and always have felt proud to do that.
“That it is devastating for me and the fact that the reason why those confidential clauses were in place was to protect my son, who, through no fault of his own, he’s vulnerable, he’s got this life-changing, lifelong conditions and I don’t want him or anything to do with his day-to-day life, to be subjected to that level of scrutiny.”
Pressed again on whether she had considered standing down, she said she had “spoken to my family about it” and “the number one priority for me and my ex-husband has always been to support our children and do the best thing for our children”.
