11/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.


There's a new craze sweeping Westminster.


Senior politicians are queuing up to join in.


Forget kissing babies and tweeting about your visit


Yes, publishing tax returns is the new thing!


David Cameron has become the first Prime Minister to publish details


He was closely followed by Scotland's First Minister,


and other senior politicians are expected to follow


Following the leak of documents from a Panamanian law firm


the Government will announce new measures to tackle tax evasion.


Labour says a full public inquiry is needed.


Tata Steel is to begin the formal process of selling its UK plants -


thousands of jobs are still at risk if a deal can't be found.


However, a City investment firm has agreed to buy the steel


A quarter of British Muslims support the idea of Sharia law being given


And with us for the whole of the programme today,


the Labour MP Jess Phillips and the Conservative MP


Jeremy and George are likely to in the next few days.


John did it a while ago, as did Zac and Sadiq.


Nigel, however, says it's a big no no.


Yes, it's the new craze in Westminster, it seems.


It's been a "taxing" few days for the Prime Minister - boom boom -


after details emerged of his late father's offshore investments


following the leak of the so-called Panama Papers.


Yesterday Mr Cameron became the first British Prime Minister


to publicise his tax affairs in such detail.


So now the spotlight inevitably moves onto other politicians,


speaking on the Westminster Hour last night UKIP leader Nigel Farage


I worry where we are going with this.


If we want to have party leaders publish their tax returns then


Presumably then all councillors must do so, Bishops of course must do so,


Actually, I think in this country what people earn is regarded


However speaking this morning the Conservative backbencher


Jacob Rees Mogg argued that such transparency was inevitable.


My personal position is that I think MPs are going to have


to publish their tax returns within the next few years.


I can't say I'm enthusiastic about this.


But it is the mood of the country and politicians need


So that will lead me in due course, I expect, to publish my tax return.


Joining me now is the Conservative MP Charles Walker and the SNP's


Was the Prime Minister right to publish the headlines of his tax


returns? He made a decision about personally I would not have done


that but I'm never going to be Prime Minister. Why would you not have


done it. People need private space. The Prime Minister has not done


anything wrong, he followed the law and paid his taxes and there was a


principle of privacy in this country around tax matters as we do other


matters. Today it is his tax affairs, why not his medical records


next. They publish those in the United States if you run for


president. Could not be said that we know that he followed the law


because he has now published his tax returns and that is not now in


doubt. The truth is we are never going to restore public confidence


in our politicians because the media ultimately Wilmot that the public


have confidence in us. So we have this great media confection and we


move on then to the next great media confection. If you want the public


to believe that the Prime Minister is a crook, and that is what you are


peddling, that he is a crook. You used that word, not me at all. If


you go back on the tape when you finish with this programme I said it


was because of the publication of his tax returns that we know he has


not done anything illegal. For the last five days the media has


peddled... Take that word back that I accused the Prime Minister of


being a crook. You are big enough to take it. Not if it is not true. The


truth is the media has spelt the line for the last five days to


suggest our Prime Minister is a crook. If that is not the case then


why are we having this debate. The Prime Minister has done nothing


wrong and it is objectionable to see a good man reduced to having to


defend his father in the way he has had to do. I do not think the Prime


Minister has done anything wrong in the legal sense at all. What has


happened, he did benefit from an offshore trust, and he admitted


that. It is shown a bright light, into a dark corner. That is the


issue of business fund trust established in overseas territories


and administered by Panamanian lawyers. We will talk about this


issue in a moment. I'm talking about tax returns at the moment. I will


come to that. This is the key thing, I think that people in power and


especially in the Cabinet, in government, responsible for setting


tax policy, must be scrupulously clean and demonstrate to the public


that they are not benefiting from loopholes in the tax system. I'm


glad that he published them as did the First Minister. Now you have


seen the headlines of the tax returns, as it clear in your mind


that the Prime Minister has not benefited from those loopholes. He


said he owned units in a trust, he sold bows and paid tax on the


dividends. There was no capital gains tax liability and that is


clear and legal. But that is not the point, the point is the offshore


nature of the business which we know is abused by other people. Not by


the Prime Minister. Not in this case but used by other people to hide


assets. Should the rest of the Cabinet now published their tax


returns? I think they should have a declaration that they had not


benefited from offshore funds or offshore assets. That you should not


invest in any kind of offshore, overseas investment M if it is an


overseas investment, buying stocks and shares in IBM, that is one


thing. But if you're investing in an institution established in an


overseas territory and administered by a Panamanian law, the public have


a right to ask why you're doing that instead of putting the cash into


stocks and shares through your local stockbroker. This is difficult, my


understanding is Minister people through their pensions, have


investments in offshore funds. I do not know then where it ends.


Personally I hope the Cabinet does not start to publish their tax


returns because where it will end up inevitably is that all our


constituents will have to publish their tax returns. And I hope that


that is not the case. So where should it stop? I said the people


responsible for determining tax policy, effectively the government,


should publish, the Cabinet. I suspect that other MPs will want to


and it will make dull reading to be honest. I suspect that will happen


and if that provides more transparency and gives a bit of an


-- confidence and encouragement to people at the top to do likewise,


that is good. Where are you on this? There are so many people using


weasel words to try to create an odour of malpractice when actually


as we have established, absolutely nothing either legally or morally


wrong has happened. I think it is really corrosive. I think it is


really corrosive when the mood music makes out that everyone in politics


or people at the top of politics are somehow dirty when British lunatics


is amongst the cleanest politics in the world. So should this end with


the Prime Minister, or should attend with the Cabinet publishing tax


returns? I do not think the Prime Minister should have had two or


should have put his tax returns into the public domain. He chose to do


that and I respect his personal position but I think it is wrong.


And poor Jeremy Corbyn to say everyone in public life, where was


that stop, the bishops who sit in the House of Lords, senior members


of the military or judiciary, the media? At what stage do we say,


enough is enough. We are to take people on trust unless there is


evidence to the contrary. This could be the price now but politicians are


paying because of the recent collapse in trust in politicians. We


all put our declarations of interest in the public domain, are expensive.


I do not see a massive upturn in political trust in response to that.


We could put our medical records, are inside leg measurement, all


kinds of things in the public domain and that would not generate an


increase in trust. You think even if every MP was to publish tax returns,


it would make no difference. I fall in line with Jacob Rees-Mogg, but


the public now demands that and I feel we are going to have to fall in


line. I think it is a shame that we are in a position where once again


politicians are seen to be untrustworthy. It is not for the


sake that people will have a go at me on Twitter that I do not want


this to be done but because everyday people must rely on us to make their


tax laws, rely on us to do the right thing by them. If they do not trust


us then we will have to literally start to give out are inside leg


measurement. So should Cabinet ministers all publish their tax


returns? I think I'm reticent to say they should but the public is


demanding it at the moment so yes, I think we're going that way. What


about my wife and children? We could move assets to them. Where does it


end, will my wife then have to publish tax returns, my children,


what about my mother? This is utter nonsense. One of the issues here


that is overlooked, publishing tax returns, what will that really tell


you. Tax returns after all are what has gone through the tax system,


what has been approved by HMRC. If you have done something that you do


not want people to know about, it is not likely to be on your tax return.


Precisely. And the tax return is interesting in terms of


transparency, but it is a declaration of no benefit from


offshore trusts and fans, that aspect we are more interested in. So


you do not benefit from a perceived loopholes. Why not just said that we


are abiding by the law? It is one law for one person and one for


everyone else. There really is not. One law is for Prime Ministers and


Cabinet ministers and another set for everyone else. Just because


anything David Cameron might have done was legal, it does not prevent


people thinking this one law for the richest one for everyone else. What


has David Cameron done wrong? I have not actually seen his tax returns,


just a copy. In the years that he has been Prime Minister, it does not


seem he has done anything illegal. Such weasel words, it does not seem


that he has done anything illegal. That is a disgraceful thing to say


and that is what I said at the start, you're trying to position the


Prime Minister in a very unpleasant and underhand way. Not just you


personally but a lot of people, as being dishonest. It is disgraceful.


Hold on. Just to get it clear, in your view from a perusal of what we


know of the last six years of his tax returns, he has done nothing


wrong. Nothing illegal. So what has he done wrong M I cannot say. You


describe the behaviour of his late father is utterly disgusting. What


was utterly disgusting dash-mac it is utterly disgusting when people


live in a society and do not want to pay all that is their fair share in


any wealth or earnings that they have in this country. My parents did


not have a little postbox in Panama where they sent their savings, they


put them in the UK and spent them here. But any dividends paid from


the fund, whether offshore or not, and any capital gains made from the


fund, whether offshore or not, were taxed in the UK. Had that money


being invested to UK stockbrokers, would have been more tax liability?


An interesting question, but if he paid tax on all the dividends and if


he paid capital gains tax on any capital gains made from the fund


committee chair, was relinquished, what does disgusting about that? He


lives in the UK, he uses the systems here that everyone else uses. My


late mother was dying and was offered an inheritance tax stitch


up, her account and said to her if you give it to so-and-so and she


said I'm going to give it to the hospital treating me for cancer.


Just finally, if he paid tax on everything that he was meant to,


because the money was repatriated here and subject to British tax,


what was disgusting? What is disgusting is living in this country


and having your business in a fake post box in a different country. So


you do not have to pay UK tax. But he did pay UK tax, we're told. Had


it been here, but he had to pay more tax, if he had invested it in


stockbrokers here would he have had to pay more tax? I'm not sure what


the final word is. Then you will not need it! We have a new culture of


bullying in this country. And this is not going to go away. The Foreign


Minister will publish his tax returns, others will have to, it


will be medical records next and go on and on. What politicians do one


day I suspect our constituents will be following on pretty closely


afterwards. This afternoon, David Cameron


is expected to tell MPs that his Government "has done more


than any other to take action against corruption in all its forms"


but they "will go further". As the Prime Minister


published his tax returns, Labour unveiled a 10-point plan


to tackle tax avoidance, including a call for an immediate


public inquiry and a register This afternoon, David Cameron


is expected to announce criminal penalties on companies whose


employees encourage This is in addition to plans


announced in February last year by then-Liberal Democrat


minister Danny Alexander - for a new offence for firms that


fail to prevent tax evasion. That new offence is expected


to become law later this year. Mr Cameron has already announced


a new task force led by HM Revenue and Customs and the National Crime


Agency to investigate allegations of tax-dodging and money laundering,


raised by the so-called The government has also repeated


commitments to introduce over 25 further measures in this Parliament


to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, raising - they claim -


a further ?16 billion in tax. In 2013 the then coalition


government introduced a General Anti-Abuse Rule


which outlawed reducing tax by legal means, where those arrangements are


put in place purely to reduce tax. And last April the government's


Diverted Profits Tax - the so-called "Google Tax" -


came into force, aimed at big businesses who operate in the UK


but avoid tax by trading In January, George Osborne claimed


this tax resulted in Google agreeing to pay ?130 million in backdated


tax, but it later emerged Has this government done more on tax


evasion than any other previous government? There has been a number


of steps. Some of the measures taken are good. Some of the stuff that has


been announced is also helpful. I'm concerned about getting to the point


where beneficial ownership of these businesses is clear to the


authorities, not just his Mrs but also assets bought with the cash.


There are 20, 30, ?40 million properties in Mayfair bought in cash


without a mortgage wrapped up in corporate envelopes, who is the


owner? Where do they get the money from? It is not just about tax


avoidance but about identifying criminality. Those are parked in


assets in the middle of London. Which they cannot move unless you


want to rip up the house? Yes but they can park the money there


safely. How does the British government find it out and what does


it do about it? The reason that the Panama papers have very few American


names is because of an agreement between Panama and the United


States. Let's make sure that bilateral agreements are in place so


we have access to the correct data from the correct places, identify


the genuine beneficial owners and if they are due to be taxed, make sure


the tax due is paid. What do you say? I think that making offshore


tax havens like Panama more transparent is no bad thing. It is


very dangerous to conflate very different terms. Tax avoidance and


tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal activity. We absolutely, the


government in this Parliament and previous ones, have been cracking


down in previous ones. The response to tax avoidance, if you do find it


morally Republicans... As David Cameron did with Jimmy Carter. You


change the rules, if they are acting in their way that society thinks is


wrong, the response is to change the laws. That's definitely true. Tax


evasion is clear-cut. Tax avoidance, there is a clear... There is a


spectrum. At one end, tax avoidance that politicians encourage, like


putting money in an ice all taking out a pension. There is really


aggressive tax avoidance at the other end, like the Jimmy Carter


case, and in between there are a whole range of investment funds,


putting up windows, all the rest of it, if you make it so, located that


it is a grey area that is quite difficult to define. It is exactly


right. For the average people, the little people as some people have


called them today, I wouldn't advise it, it is a company... As far as


most people are concerned, most people pay their tax PAYE. I don't


have a tax return. You can look at my P 60. The combination is that


sunlight can't get in and we can't have transparency. What is really


interesting about what James said is the difference between evasion and


avoiding tax. They are completely different and they are complicated


and difficult to understand. We must make that different. I want him to


promise that we will do the same when we talk about people on


benefits which are also competitive. Housing benefits, for instance. I


have sat in debates where people misunderstand their own policy. I


think it is very consistent, simplifying these financial


arrangements, Iain Duncan Smith announced one of their driving


ambitions to dramatically simplify the welfare system so that people


can actually understand what they are entitled to. It is absolutely


right that we simplify the tax system so people understand...


Politicians have said that almost every month in the studio. Gordon


Brown doubled the size of the tax guide and your Chancellor has added


another 30% to it. Mr Brown was in for ten years, your man has been in


for six. The more you talk about it, the gig at the tax guide you make. I


like taxes to be necessary... I like them to be paid. I like them to be


simple as possible. You went to this often, Jess and I are going to agree


on this. They are meant to be paid. We may not have much control over


Panama, that may be done through the OECD or on a more global scale, but


we have control over what are known as Crown dependencies. To have the


companies registered in Panama but actually based in the petition


urging I and others. What should we do about the Crown dependencies? --


in the British Virgin Islands. It should be pretty straightforward,


people will find it straightforward, to have a register of the beneficial


owners of businesses registered in those territories. As a starting


point. Before we even get to Panama and the other countries where law


firms provide these services. As a starting point. If British


dependencies have a register of beneficial interests in their own


areas, we will be able to see, I suspect, very quickly indeed and if


we simply follow the money thereafter, the UK Treasury and


other Exchequers and tax authorities will find a lot of income that at


the moment is hidden and untaxed. If the British government was to do


that, others have suggested it, given that you would have two flag


it up, what would be to stop all these companies relocated? This is


not a UK problem. The figures heard at the weekend were in the region of


21 trillion of cash around the world part in what are known as offshore


havens. Every Advantest Chrissie in the world once it tax dollars to pay


for public services. I think there would be support from every advanced


economy for this sort of action. So it needs a global action? Yes.


A new statue of Baroness Thatcher has been built and was set to be


the sculpture has been blocked by the former PM's daughter Carol.


Was it A) Because it wasn't made of iron?


Or D) She wasn't holding her handbag?


At the end of the show James and Jess will give


news for the steel industry. Just before we came on air it has been


agreed to sell Tata's steelworks in Scunthorpe. Joining us is business


editor Simon Jack. Tell others about Scunthorpe and what are they going


to do with it? Good News in an otherwise bleak time


for the steel industry. A company that specialised in turnaround


failing businesses have bought it and will rename it to British Steel.


I imagine everyone will be high-fiving everybody. We will hear


from Sajid Javid later today. It should be said, union members are


still to vote on pay and pension changes that would see a 3% pay cut


and changes to pension benefits in return for a lifeline for over 4000


jobs, surely, they will get that support. But this is not the bit


that includes Port Talbot in South Wales. There are 10,000 Tata


employees around the country whose future remains uncertain. They are


going to launch an official sales process for that. There have been


tentative signs of interest but the restructuring deal you would need to


get that done is much more severe than the one for this and the


crucial element is time. It took nine months to get this deal done.


Whether the Tata board can sit tight for months when they are losing


millions of week is very much unclear. In the context, Scunthorpe


seems good news, not great but in the context of bad news for the


steel industry. Let's move on to Port Talbot. Is there a preferred


buyer? Is there a likely candidate in the frame? Liberty House group


and its chairman Sanjiv Gupta have come forward as a potential saviour.


This is not the one that the faithful want to hear. This is a


radical restructure of the plant at Port Talbot, getting rid of the


blast furnace and replacing it with an industry that is less intensive


and lest people intensive. You would need massive support and retraining.


Whether that can be done when Tata have said that they want a deal done


in a time bound way. I will be talking to them later today to find


out what they mean by that. They think they need to do a deal in


weeks, it will take months. Whether they have the patience to do that


will be unclear. There are many more jobs at stake there. To summarise,


as things stand, it would be hard to say that there is light at the end


of the tunnel for Port Talbot? There will be people who would come


forward to buy bits and pieces of the remaining Tata operation. There


have been expressions of interests from Germany, from liberty group.


People might want to buy it piecemeal. The idea of it staying


and being sold in its current form is a little far-fetched at the


moment. We will let you get on. A busy day for you.


Joining me now is Roy Rickhuss - General Secretary of


the Community Union which represent around a half


You're going to see the Business Secretary Sajid Javid this


afternoon. He is attending a meeting and we will be in attendance. That


is why you are in London? I'm based in London but that is why I'm here.


What would you like him to stay but he went to Mumbai last week, rather


politically. We were there before and Matt representatives of the


board to try to push them the turnaround plan not just for port


Talbot but for the other business. We were disappointed, they chose not


to support it and we are where we are. They will not go back on that


position now. So the decision to sell their entire UK steel business,


what is left after the news we heard this morning about Greybull Capital,


we called on them to be responsible sellers. By that we mean the whole


gambit, supporting the businesses, ensuring it is sold as a going


concern. You would not want to be split up in a way that Simon


suggested customer I'm not as pessimistic as Simon, I believe


there is optimism. Looking at what happened in the last few weeks,


we've started to build I think a head of steam that says the UK steel


industry is not the basket that everyone makes it out to be. Not


just good news today we're hearing, last week we also saw the sale of


the two Scottish plants and we should not underestimate that


achievement. That means that we can bring production back to Scotland,


which was... But very small. About 400 jobs in total and then the


supply chain. But it is the principal. Simon explain the


difficulties of selling the business intact. And the timing


considerations as well. What would you like the government to do to


overcome these hurdles to assail customer that is the same as we


passed from the government and asked Tata, to be responsible and if needs


be the government may need to support the business through the


process. Through the transition period. With that the temporary


nationalisation in your view? That could be an option, I would not take


any option off the table. I would refer to positive government


intervention and that is what we called for all along. If the


government can see the position where a buyer is in place, there has


been expressions of interest, we need to get from that position to a


successful conclusion and why should the government not support that


process. I think there are signs coming out of government that there


are more prepared now to consider that because obviously they hit are


finally waking up to the point that this is a significant, fundamental


industry to our country. You cannot have a successful and affection


industry without a successful steel industry. If you were a prospective


buyer or for example Tata, would you not be likely to have some have


dashed to tough conditions for the government and say, you need to do


something about energy prices for heavy energy intensive businesses,


you need to do something about business rates, as well. And you


need to do more about Chinese steel dumping in the EU. Would you not be


likely to ask the government to do something on all of those fronts as


a condition of sale? I do not know about condition of sale but they


should do them anyway. We have been campaigning not just for a few


months but for years on these issues. My union in particular


helped working with the UK steel Association to put those demands


together. Those demands went in front of government and I get


frustrated because sometimes you hear men -- government minister


saying we have done that but they have not. They made a start, I will


give them that, on some of these issues. But they have not resolved


to the industry's satisfaction, the issues you have raised. So anyone


looking to invest in the UK steel industry absolutely will need


confidence from the government that they will act on those issues. And


we have not yet have that confidence from the government. They have been


slow to move on energy prices, the energy costs for Tata are twice as


high as those of Germany, business rates, the Chancellor did nothing


about that in the budget. And on dumping we have barely managed 13%


tariff when the Americans managed 266%. The government has been, and


I'm pleased at the movement that has been made has been recognised by


people in the industry and I understand from the steel industry


point of view, they would like to have seen that go further and go


faster. It is worth remembering we have been opposed over and over


again for measures to bring about a reduction in energy costs because I


think sometimes people look at these things in isolation. They think of


energy policy and do not think of the implication for key British


businesses. You have had six years to know the impact it has on heavy


energy intensive businesses in the country and for six years, you


inherited that from the last Labour government, you did not inherited,


but then there was the carbon floor price, but you presided over energy


costs for companies like Tata that are twice as expensive as those of


Germany. The government is pushing in the right direction, that has


been recognised. Like a lot of people I want to see that continue.


And I think that we do need some kind of questions asked about the


implications of energy policies on British businesses. It may be too


late to ask questions, thousands of jobs are at stake. The French,


Italians and Germans have been pushing to get road of, it is an


arcane issue but known as the lesser duty rule which stops the European


Union putting up really penal rates even in the face of dumping at which


the Americans have been able to do. The British Government has opposed


this, why? You would have to ask a government minister for their


perspective. Chance would be a nice thing! My personal position, and


this is a personal position, I'm not a great believer in trade tariffs.


Even for dumping? I want to see the British steel industry successful.


We already had talk about how it might adapt to be successful for the


future. But in imposing tariffs, it does not ring down the cost of


British Steel. The purpose of these kind of tariffs... People in the


manufacturing industry are already scared about the cost of production


and would be horrified... You cannot build an industry on the basis of


dumped steel for a couple of years. In the past couple of years China


has started to dumped steel and that is an easy definition, selling at


below cost. Are you telling viewers this morning that even when they are


clearly selling below cost, dumping, that they should not be penal


tariffs? Tariffs pushed the cost of raw materials up, they do not bring


the cost of other alternatives down. That was hit British manufacturing.


You answered the question. I believe that tariffs are necessary and it


seems to be the government has been found wanting and what their wanting


is a hand in China pocket. Unfortunately British workers are


paying the price. We have got to commit to British Steel through


legislation, through the budget, and it seems to me it was only when the


job of Sajid Javid was on the line that anyone cared. Come back to see


it in a couple of months, will be see a smile on your face? I really


believe so. I have every confidence in the industry. I believe that are


still workers are the best in the world and I believe that we have


never once asked for charity. We do not want charity. What we want is a


fair and level playing field. And I hear this about putting on tariffs,


pushing prices up, that was not always the case. Leading up to 2008


the steel industry was a good place to be, everyone was making money,


there was a lot of successful businesses. And still prices were


higher than than they had ever been, you did not get this call from


people saying we must lower still prices or we cannot make money. I


will have a smile on my face. I hope you will come back and see us. Thank


you. plenty happened over the recess and


plenty more coming up to keep us all busy.


Today the government starts sending its EU leaflet


Leave campaigners are expected to press in the Commons for changes


to the Finance Bill to secure an additional ?9 million in funding


to compensate for the amount spent on the Government leaflet.


While in the House of Lords peers are poised to force


changes as the Housing Bill begins its report stages.


Tomorrow, the new Work and Pensions Secretary,


Stephen Crabb, delivers his first major speech since taking


On Wednesday David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn square up


in the House of Commons for their first PMQs


Thursday marks the deadline for the Electoral Commission


to make its final decision on the official designation of lead


campaigners for each outcome at the EU referendum.


And Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is expected to make a major


And on Friday, the official regulated period for


With all be poring over those rules to make sure we do not end up the


wrong side of the Electoral Commission.


We're joined now by Harry Cole of the Sun


and Rowena Mason from the Guardian from College Green.


What is the latest on tax returns, is the chance now going to give us


tax return? We are seeing more of the joined up thinking from the


government now that we were treated to last week. This morning if you


woke up to the headlines, we were getting the tax return from George


Osborne and then suddenly, we might not. And now the Prime Ministers


ordered George Osborne to publish those so I think we will get them.


It would be unfortunate if Jeremy Corbyn got to the summit of the


first rail kit he had on the government and managed to shoot


himself in the foot. But six days ago he said he was happy to publish


his tax return and since then it is, he will publish it soon. There is


speculation that if he has an accountant, they are having


difficulty putting together the paperwork. My advice to him would be


to get it right. Take the absolute shoe in he will get in Parliament if


he has not publish it at the time he stands up and has a go at David


Cameron. But if it is published and a slightly inaccurate I think that


would be terrible and Woodley to questions over how he could run the


country. Rowena, your newspaper has been playing a pivotal role in the


Parma papers. What are you hearing on tax returns? The line this


morning from the lobby briefing was that not only does the promise to


think it is right that he publishes his own tax returns, but he wants


the chance and respective candidates for both of those jobs to publish


more information about their tax as well. What he is doing is drawing a


clear line to stop MPs potentially having to release their tax returns,


saying it is a matter for them. But anyone looking after the nation 's


finances, and the opposition people in those roles, they should provide


more information as David Cameron has done. The EU leaflet dropping on


a doorstep near you soon. How angry are at the Tory Eurosceptics about


this? The blowhard or already blowing pretty hard in the


referendum campaign and this has poured petrol on the fire. We knew


that there would be this kind of stunt, this leaflet was in the


legislation that it was possible. But the way he went about it,


sneaking about during an ongoing tax row, they're angry. And all kinds of


hints that we might go back to the days of Maastricht where rebels were


able to kind of grind the government business down to a halt. But


government business is pretty much as anyway so I am not quite sure


what they're planning. We have got the Electoral Commission having to


choose who gets the money, who gets the official designation. One


official leave and one official remain campaign. The interest is in


who gets the league campaign. Remind us what the choice is and who you


think will get it? I think most rags have to be on Vote Leave, the


campaign being run by Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings. The


politics associated with that, the Tory babies, people like Michael go.


The other campaign is also interesting, it has close links to


Ukip. Called grassroots out. Connected to the Ukip donor Arron


Banks. It is very impressive how you have got all this in your mind! The


thing about grassroots out, they help a lot of rallies around the


country and they have a lot of the Ukip supporters behind them. One of


the interesting things about the designation, it looks that


grassroots support and that is one element that would be in their


favour. But I still think it will be Vote Leave. Also things like


financial probity and who the backers are. So no Panama account!


Arron Banks denied he was anything to do with the Panama papers today.


He is not Vote Leave! It is all one big mess. And finally, is Jeremy


Corbyn speech on the EU, are we going to hear the background strains


of the EU flag fluttering? Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of staying in


the EU and made that clear all along. Not that clear! Some people


would like him to show more passion and fire about wanting to stay in.


We have been promised a very enthusiastic speech. We do not know


where he's doing that but it will be remarkable to watch lifelong


Eurosceptic wrap themselves in the blue and yellow flag. Whether he can


do that convincingly and will take half his Shadow Cabinet with him,


Diane Abbott back in the day, all strong Eurosceptics.


The use of Sharia, or Islamic religious law,


is growing in Britain, with thousands of Muslims using it


to help resolve family and financial disputes each year.


A new survey says that a quarter of UK Muslims would like to see sharia


law be given more credence in British law.


Their case is being taken up by crossbench peer Baroness Cox


in her Private Member's Bill, aiming to make it illegal for Sharia


courts to act as legal courts in arbitration cases.


The government, however, doesn't think this is necessary.


So we asked Baroness Cox to set out her case and take a turn


In Britain, for 800 years, since the signing of Magna Carta,


we have had a fundamental commitment to the principle of one law


for all and equality of access to that law.


I believe passionately in the freedom of religion and belief.


But in Britain there is now a system of sharia councils or courts


which inherently discriminate against women and girls in ways that


are causing a great deal of suffering.


This is a moral maze which we must navigate.


For example, under sharia law and man can divorce his wife just


by saying "I divorce you" three times.


The woman often has to pay or to fulfil other


conditions which may be very difficult for her.


But sharia law allows polygamy, a man can have up to four wives.


And one of my Muslim women friends who is doing research


into the plight of Muslim woman in the West Midlands,


told me how women sometimes married into polygamous marriages


without even realising there was already another


I had wept with many of these Muslim women when they told me how much


One lady said to me, I feel betrayed by Britain.


I came here to get away from this, it is worse


here than in the country I came from.


Their suffering would be making our suffragettes


We must not get caught in a labyrinth of inaction,


because we are afraid of upsetting cultural sensitivities,


It is high time that we made sure that we do uphold


the principle of one law for all, of equality of access to that law,


and we end the kind of discrimination that is causing


so much suffering too many girls and women in our country today.


We're also joined by Yasmin Khan, director of the Halo Project -


a charity that helps women victims of domestic violence and forced


The baroness is wanting to help the kind of women that your organisation


is hoping to help. But you are opposed to that. I am accepting that


there are problems within the sharia system. But if you look at the


number of people who used the sharia Council, 80% of those are women. I


welcome new legislation such as the criminalisation of forced marriage,


introduced in 2014, we need to be very careful about understanding.


There is a misconception about what this law suggests. It is very clear


that the law of the land be applied and that should overrule. The law of


the land should always be above sharia law? Muslims are expected to


abide by the law of the land. Do we have evidence that the women are


using sharia law because it is a conscious choice or because they


feel that the norms and pressures in their community forced them to go


that way? They have at the moment the flexibility to use both. There


are laws that protect them. There are movements within the sharia


councils to work progressively and modernise and regulate some systems.


We should be working with them, not against them and introducing new law


when it is unnecessary for stop I believe in freedom of religion and


the right of women to access the kind of courts and council that they


wish. It must be genuine and not through ignorance. I found that many


women didn't know the options. They didn't know that an Islamic marriage


wasn't legally registered in this country. They have no rights


whatsoever. It was a cry from them for knowledge and a cry from the


heart for them for freedom from divesting violence. This was not the


context which allows policies and principles and actions that are


incompatible with the values and laws of our land. Is domestic file


is allowed under sharia law? It is not. -- domestic violence. We must


not marginalised communities, we must work with them and understand


them. Does sharia law allow for domestic violence? It allows


chastisement and that is used in many cases. It is important to


understand the number of and women who use sharia councils. I am not


here to comment on that. You are. And I am asking you to comment. It


allows freedom and it allows certainty. I'm saying that we need


more dialogue to help all people, especially Muslim women. This is


very interesting, isn't it? My heart sinks when a Muslim woman comes into


my surgery and thinks she has rights and hands me the papers for an


Islamic marriage and not a British legal marriage, my heart sinks. I


have been through lots of issues regarding custody and people


escaping domestic violence within the cost -- context of sharia law.


We are in danger of portraying domestic violence as being more


prolific in the Muslim community. That is simply not the case. It is


everywhere. What is your point? If sharia law this grim and -- if


sharia law discriminates against women in any way, it should be


stopped. I agree that the law definitely needs to be changed and


we are already working and looking at changing and reforming. That is


the focus I want to look at. I am suggesting we look with local


communities and see how you can modernise the councils that


currently operate. This probably won't get through the Commons. Not


this time. But we hope that next time it will start in the Commons.


Thank you for joining me. Another months of riding high


in the Republican race, last week the New York businessman


lost the Wisconsin primary And things aren't looking good


for the Hillary Clinton either, who also just lost to Bernie Sanders


in the recent primary. I am finding it hard to keep count


of the primary she has lost recently.


from Bloomberg in our Washington Bureau.


Is it likely that we will have a contested convention for the


Republicans? It seems quite likely. We have seen that over the weekend


Donald Trump has been struggling in Colorado, failing to secure a single


delegate from that state. The arithmetic is getting more difficult


for him to get to the 1237. He needs to secure the nomination outright


before Cleveland. The last really contest and one was in 1952. There


was a bit of one in 1976. 1952 in Chicago, Ike emerged. People thought


it was going to be Senator Taft. I right in thinking that by the second


ballot people can go whichever way they please? This is the crazy


thing. Every state has different rules. You need experience to get


through this. Certain delegates are an bound going in. As you said, in


the first ballot most people have two vote the way their primaries and


caucuses turned out but after that, if nobody can get to 1237, it is a


free for all with people going for their preference and they are


technically an bound. That is why you see this man-to-man delegate.


Ted Cruz has an advantage in this. He is stocking the slate for each


state with people who will be loyal to him. For if we get to subsequent


ballots are around the world. I wasn't there in 1952... I can see


that! Although Mrs Clinton has the arithmetic with her, she is losing a


lot of the primaries to Bernie Sanders. He has a great fight in


him. What does it tell others about her candidacy? She's not sweeping


all before her. She does have a moment and then fuse jazz gap


compared to the Vermont senator. He wants to use this to push home his


issue, appealing to the progressive side of the party. It is to push her


to see what she will do to address those issues. She is definitely


showing weakness. This, for the Republicans, is something that they


are going to seize upon. If she can't even beat Bernie Sanders and


secure these big state, what does it say about her chances in a general


election? That is what they are using this exercise for. Is there


any chance that the Attorney General would take action against Mrs


Clinton? President Obama address this over the weekend. He said any


decision on her e-mail would be neutral. There will be no political


influence to this decision. Really? That is where we are at at the time.


That is what the president says. Thank you for marking our card.


Before we go, why did Carol Thatcher not want the statue to go up in


Parliament Square? What it was made of. The hairdo? It looked like Meryl


Streep? Because of the handbag? There we go. It was the handbag.


That's it. The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One. The daily


politics will be back at noon tomorrow with all the big political


stories of the day. Probably, tax again. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles