Rishi Sunak has declared his wife’s shareholding in a childcare company that could benefit from a new government policy, four years after she invested in the company, a much-delayed new register of ministers’ interests has shown. In a footnote to his entry on the register, Sunak declares that among “a number of direct shareholdings” owned by his wife, Akshata Murty, is a “minority shareholding” in Koru Kids, one of six companies involved in a pilot scheme to incentivise people to become childminders. Sunak’s full entry for family interests says: “The prime minister’s wife is a venture capital investor. She owns a venture capital investment company, Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, and a number of direct shareholdings.” This links to a footnote, which mentions the shareholding in Koru Kids. The prime minister is being investigated by the parliamentary standards commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, over whether he properly declared his wife’s shareholding. Companies House records show Murty first took a stake in Koru Kids in March 2019. The six registers published since then made no mention of it, only mentioning Catamaran Ventures. Unlike the parallel register of MPs’ interests, the register for ministers is much less frequent – it normally comes twice a year rather than every fortnight – and the government’s adviser on ministerial interests does not include every item submitted. Sunak’s press secretary declined to say when the PM first registered the Koru Kids investment, but said it had happened “for a number of years”, and indicated that previous advisers on ministerial standards had chosen not to include it on the list. Wednesday’s register is the first prepared by Laurie Magnus, who took over as the standards adviser in December, six months after his predecessor, Christopher Geidt, resigned amid unhappiness over Boris Johnson’s involvement in lockdown-breaking parties. The gap meant it was the first update since May 2022. In an introduction to the register, Magnus said the list was not intended to be exhaustive, and that ministers should not be expected to list every interest for family members, as this would be unfair. “The list is not a register of interests and does not therefore include every interest that a minister has declared in relation to themselves and their family members,” he wrote. “To do so would represent an excessive degree of intrusion into the private affairs of ministers that would be unreasonable, particularly in respect of their family members. The list instead documents those interests, including of close family, which are, or may be perceived to be, directly relevant to a minister’s ministerial responsibilities.” Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said the new register showed the need for “stronger rules and tougher enforcement to give the public the transparency and accountability they deserve”. She added: “There will be no accountability while the prime minister continues to mark his own homework on ethics.” One possible complication for Sunak is that Greenberg is expected to look into whether the prime minister should have declared the interest last month when questioned by a committee of MPs, where the rules are stricter than for registering interests. Appearing before the liaison committee on 28 March, Sunak was asked by the Labour MP Catherine McKinnell about a proposed pilot scheme to incentivise people to become childminders, with Koru Kids among six private childcare providers involved. When McKinnell asked Sunak whether he had anything to declare in relation to the scheme, he replied: “No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way.” The MPs’ code of conduct states that not only must members be “open and frank” in declaring interests, but mentioning a declaration without explaining what it is “will not suffice on its own”. If Greenberg finds Sunak should have been more open with the liaison committee, there is the option of “rectification” – where he admits fault and amends the record. However, if the prime minister refuses, or if Greenberg decides he has not been properly transparent, Sunak’s case could be referred to the standards committee, made up of MPs and lay members, for punishment.