Political news, interviews and debate with Andrew Neil and guests Labour's Jess Phillips and James Cleverly from the Conservatives. Should politicians publish their tax returns?
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.
Labour's Jess Phillips and James Cleverly from the Conservatives keep Andrew Neil company throughout the programme. They look at the ongoing row into whether politicians should publish their tax returns and the government's proposals to clamp down on tax evasion. We also get an update into Tata's sale of its steel plants, and former head of the civil service Bob Kerslake discusses his concerns over the Housing and Planning bill. Baroness Cox talks about her proposed bill that limits the power of Sharia Courts, and we get the latest on the US Presidential election with Bloomberg's Megan Murphy who joins the programme live from Washington.