09/04/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be

With me are Nigel Nelson, political editor of the Sunday People,

and the political commentator Jo Phillips.

There is a lot of politics to commentate on. They happen decent

and have brought -- they have been decent and have brought their tax

returns! The Sunday Telegraph leads

with details of the Prime Minister's financial affairs after

David Cameron took the unprecedented step of publishing details

of his tax returns. The Sunday Times also has that

story, including a claim that the PM could avoid -- could have avoided

paying inheritance tax on a gift from his mother. The Mail On Sunday

says this is a historic moment for David Cameron. The financial

disclosures also make the front of the Observer, which it concedes is

unprecedented by a sitting Prime Minister. The express also pours

over the details, but it also wants to know how rich Samantha Cameron

is. It is everywhere, then, isn't it? Let's start with the Observer on

how it reports the story. Cameron discloses his tax affairs in bed to

defuse Panama crisis. It is an unprecedented release of personal

tax details, but we have had a week where the statements have been

partial disclosure after partial closure. It is like the Archers,

isn't it? He is the first Prime Minister in history, and I believe

the first leader of a political party, to publishers tax return.

He's going to establish a task force led by HM RC to look at the legality

of the financial affairs of the Company is named in the Panama

papers. There will, I'm sure, be pressure on all politicians and

people seeking public office to publish their affairs as well

thought out if there were anything untoward, he wouldn't publish the

details, would he? I have poured over them all afternoon. The kind of

thing you see is what he pays tax on. For the first time, we now know

that he gets his share of the house that he rents out, the family home.

He shares that with Samantha, they take off each. He gets about ?46,000

a year in rent and pays tax on that. On his overall income, he pays a

total of about ?76,000 for last year. Although those things are not

a surprise in the sense that we knew his salary beforehand, at least the

public get a chance to look at that what really, it's what he should

have done on Monday, if he'd been sensible about it. He would have

said, OK, if there is any question, let me show you what I do. And he

did say four years ago that he would publish his tax will stop four years

to the day. If he had done it four years ago... Will it defuse the

Panama crisis? It is much bigger than just him, isn't it? I don't

think it will defuse the crisis. As we'll see from looking at the

papers, this is a story about David Cameron and his leadership. While it

is interesting and gives us something to talk about, I think it

detracts from the much bigger issue, which is what the Panama papers have

revealed, which is companies and organisations and crocs and tyrants

hiding their money in a way that is much more damaging. I think the

damaging bit... All that is true, by the way. But the actual damaging bit

is to do with offshore accounts at all. It is not that there are

necessarily as anything dodgy about it, but what we're dealing with here

is that these are places where people hide money and hide the

ownership of that money. Hiding anything creates suspicion. The

moment you are linked to one of these places, doesn't mean you have

done anything wrong at all, but the question is, why? Why do you want to

go? The thing that some people regard as a model is the fact that

in certain places no tax is paid by these companies that hold the money.

That's right. The tax is only paid when the money comes back on shore.

It is the issue about hiding. You can understand why, if you have a

load of money in a country where you are likely to have it taken away by

her dodgy Government, you would want to get it out of that country. Why

do people in Britain need to do the same think was back let's look at

the Mail On Sunday. -- why do people in Britain need to do the same?

Let's look at the Mail On Sunday. He was below the in camera to and

stacks threshold, so keep -- he was below the inheritance tax threshold.

Had it been a lump sum from his father, clearly, he would have paid

somewhere between ?70,000 and ?80,000 on that. He didn't, he

actually invested in land. The question is, was he trying to avoid

anything? If she lives for other two years, he won't pay any money at all

and it will be a gift. The Mail On Sunday is getting ahead of itself,

it is saying that he has avoided this, but it depends on his mother

living another two years. The Sunday Telegraph explained that more

clearly. Those arrangements are open to everybody. Absolutely. I dare say

you could look at the personal finance columns in any of the Sunday

papers and they would be advising people how to do that. It is quite a

common thing that people want to give money to their children, and it

is absolutely the parent or the person giving the money who has got

to live for seven years in order for you to avoid paying inheritance tax.

It is pretty standard procedure, it's not illegal. But it is the sums

of money involved, which to a lot of people will look like a lottery win.

I think that is the problem, Martine, as things in politics often

are, it is about perception. And the perception is, here he is, this Tory

toff with loads and loads of money, beyond the dreams of a lot of

ordinary people. The fact that he is getting a rental on a house in

London, which is par for the course, friendly, and that his family are

only doing what many millions of families around the country do, and

there is no suggestion that he has done anything illegal or is trying

to fiddle his taxes in any way, but it is about the perception. In the

same way as MPs' expenses, who had forgotten that he had paid off his

mortgage, which most of us would celebrate was not quite. Some of

those figures you were talking about, Nigel but

inside the Mail On Sunday we get on to what some, it is -- what some

commentators say it is about, which... Ian Birrell in the Mail On

Sunday says it is all about Brexit. Perhaps it is. You now have a

complete divide only middle in the Tory party between those who want to

get Britain out of Europe and those who would have us stay in. Anything

David Cameron does wrong then upsets the people who want to take Britain

out of Europe, and they slam him for it. They did the same thing with the

budget. They are not the normal suspects for disability campaigners,

and yet they were furious over George Osborne taking money off the

disabled. The same thing applies here - they're having a go at

Cameron because of Brexit. And there is a danger at the moment to his

leadership will stop some of them are talking about, we're not sure

how long he can last. It is that kind of conversation that is

happening in the Commons. Even in sections of the press that the

Conservatives can normally rely on, Cameron cannot rely on them. It is

interesting to see in the papers that we have so far that there is a

unanimous if slightly not hugely obvious... They are not being

sympathetic. I think this comment piece in the Mail On Sunday, he is

saying, and we saw it with Blair and Brown as well, this is the end of an

error mood. -- the end of an era. Let's pause for a moment. One of our

producers is also, it would appear, a high finance expert, he said, the

inheritance taxes paid by the not the individual.

-- not the beneficiary. Let's look at the Telegraph. If how Downing

Street, the Prime Minister, has handled the tax affair is and how to

do, there is someone else who seems to have shown a masterclass in how

to deal with a difficult subject. You hear is, the Archbishop of

Canterbury. Who, it was revealed today, is the son of Sir Anthony

Montague Browne, a civil servant and aide to Churchill. He has handled

this with astonishing dignity, great aplomb, he said, I am not fazed, I

know who I am through my faith. There has always been a slight

question. And he is like, and? Next point. Absolutely. Justin Welby

today has the respect and love of the British public because he came

out immediately and said, yes, I was really surprised, but this is the

case. The comparisons are remarkable. Justin Welby was worried

about his mother, who is in her 80s, and the effect on her, in the same

way that David Cameron was worried about the effect on his mother of

what was going on. Elderly people commenting aims to me, are a lot

more resilient than some of their offspring give them credit for.

David Cameron has spoken to our paper tonight. Justin Welby's mother

came out and went through the circumstances, seemingly quite

happy. This was fantastic, get it out there and hold your head up

high. It will be gone in no time, won't it was not staying with the

Sunday Telegraph, spies to vet the Chilcott report. This report into

the Iraq war that it feels we will never see. It's just... This is yet

another delaying tactic, it seems. The Sunday Telegraph has discovered

that a team of national security officials are going to go to the

offices of the Chilcott enquiry and they are going to start the security

vetting procedures. Which means that they can remove yet more sections

from the final report. We believe that there are about 150 ministers,

civil servants and military people who are named or criticised in the

report. And if this team of national security experts can read act that,

you do wonder what you're going to end up with apart from something

that says the Chilcott Report and the Leicester that black lines. We

still don't know. The latest is that it was meant to come out in the

summer, but they said that last summer. At they start redacting any

more, there would be anything left. This process was supposed to happen

at the beginning when they said what evidence could be given. It is not

for looking through now and taking bits out. Who gets the chance to

say, no, that needs to stay back in? There is up process going on at the

moment where they are asking the people who are named and criticised

in the report so that they can have their tuppence worth and say that

they don't like that bit. The intelligence agencies might get

dizzy, we're giving away one of our secrets. That is a process that

should have happened at the beginning. And they should have laid

it out at the beginning the parameters. We will stay with the

Sunday Telegraph. Host in a very tight spot in the studio. This is

Stephen Nolan who is a very well-known colleague and well liked

presenter. He got into a bit of bother in the studio. I think we

have some video. Leaning on the back of the chair, and I was swinging

around. What is wrong with this chair? It is stuck to the wall. This

bloody thing. What is wrong with the? This chair is actually stuck to

the door. He got wedged somehow. He was recording something on Facebook,

so we have the evidence. We will be shutting the door here very

carefully so that we can get out! We will wheel him down the ramp at

speed. Oh dear! C? We're used to things going pear shaped. See you

later. 11:30pm. Coming up later, stay with us. We

will tell you more about those arrests in Brussels. The authorities

say that Mohamed Abrini has admitted to being the so-called man in the

hat. He was pictured on CCTV shortly before the attacks on the Belgian

capital. Next, Reporters.