13/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



700,000 more EU migrants are living in the UK than three years ago -


would leaving the European Union let us take control of our borders?


The Culture Secretary and the dominatrix -


John Whittingdale's relationship ended two years ago


and didn't make the papers until today,


but is that because the story wasn't worth printing?


David Cameron faces Jeremy Corbyn across the despatch box


for the first Prime Minister's Questions of the summer term -


And publishing your tax return is par for the course these days


if you're a politician - but whose form's been most memorable?


All that in the next hour and with us for the duration, two MPs


who've produced some fascinating reading - and I'm not just talking


The former Environment Secretary, who's now campaigning for the UK


to leave the EU, Owen Paterson, and Shadow Foreign Secretary


Hilary Benn - who is firmly in the Remain camp.


First this morning - there are now 3.3 million EU


nationals living in the UK, an increase of 700,000 over


from the Oxford Migration Observatory, which says


almost half of the 700,000 were from Poland and Romania.


Spain, Italy and Portugal accounted for almost


So is this all grist to the mill for the Leave campaign?


Hilary Benn, do you think the issue of freedom of movement will decide


who wins this argument? No, not in the end, because of the economic


argument remaining in the EU being extremely strong, not least because


of those workers that you are referring to, who make a net


contribution to the British economy. They pay more tax than they take


out, they help to paper the NHS, care for the elderly and things like


that. And secondly because if we wish to retain access to the biggest


in the market in the world, then it's quite clear that we would have


to continue to accept free movement, because that's what Norway and


Switzerland have to do, and I think, in the end, people will decide the


economic argument and the economic risks and we've seen the IMF report


that Kmart yesterday, talking about the risk if we were to leave. Our


group that came out yesterday. We will talk about the IMF and other


institutions in a moment. You've got conflicting information. The think


tank open Europe says immigration is unlikely to fall in the event of


Brexit because of examples of other large, developed countries with the


low unemployment... What would you like to sequence Bob people accept


immigration because we have an expanding economy but we need


control and we don't have control. When I was at Defra, we had a scheme


which is brought in skilled people to pick fruit. I saw an eye surgeon


two weeks ago, absolutely furious that she counsels Morris be rinsed,


better qualified, more skilled eye surgeons from California, Sutherland


rear -- southern India or Hong Kong. We need a policy so that we can


bring in targeted, skilled people in a whole range of sectors. But the


numbers may not change? The numbers depend on what our economy requires


but let's get the power to decide this in our own Parliament by people


who we kick out of their make the wrong decisions. That's the


difference stop if we accept Owen Paterson's argument that the numbers


may not change that much, or they may vary, but it will be us that


decides what sort of people come in and Tuesdays with the right skills.


If Owen is accepting that the numbers may not change, then what's


the point of leaving the EU? And this point about the single market,


because the two are intimately connected, I think it's very clear


that if we were to vote to leave, the EU would say, well, if you wish


to continue to have full access to the single market, with all other


benefits it brings for jobs, investment and economic growth, you


will have to what Norway does, which is to pay into the European budget.


They pay almost the same per head of population. You have to accept all


of the rules - you do - you have to accept free movement. The only


difference is that we will have removed ourselves from the room when


it comes to making decisions about others in the market works. How does


that make us better off? Is that the case, that it could be a trade-off?


The quid pro quo will be that you do still have to have some sort of


freedom of movement, otherwise we won't give you full access? We will


give you access but not full access. We are the fifth largest economy in


the world. We have the fastest growth. We will be able to get


control of our own policy, in our own Parliament, and people are very


angry about this, because they've had no say on this issue, because we


don't control this policy and they know Beverley well that people can


bowl about Victoria station this afternoon, drawn in by our growing


economy, and there is no decision on our part of who comes goes. That


will change if we get control of our own policy can stop the numbers


depend on how fast the economy is growing and which sectors one which


people. We want targeted policy, bringing the right people for the


right jobs at the right time. At the moment there is no stopping people


coming from the EU in large numbers, not just from Eastern Europe but


from southern Europe, where the economies are still recovering, from


Italy, from Portugal. Interviews all morning about the fact that in Spain


young Spanish people cannot get jobs that pay anything like the rate that


they are going to be paid here and, again, we wouldn't be able to do


anything about that. That is true and the prospects for young people


in Spain are pretty grim. It's one of the reasons why our decision on


the last Labour government decision, not to join the euro was wise of


time and even more wise in hindsight. But they are coming and


contributing to the economy. They are often low skilled workers. To


constantly assert that we will be able to continue to get access to


the single market on current terms and not have to accept free


movement, there is no evidence for that whatsoever, and the problem


with your argument, Owen, is that you won't control it and I wouldn't


control it in the event was voting to leave. It would be the other


member states. And the choice people have to make is, do we stick with


what we know and what we've got, which is access to the larger single


market in the world, with all of the benefits, or do we take a risk on


not getting as good a deal? And you can't promise the deal will be as


good, can you? It's looking like we are going to win because ICM gave us


the 3-point lead last night. We will have a massive mandate from the


British people. This is a key issue in the campaign and we will be


negotiating from a position of enormous strength. That changes the


whole debate. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. We are


saying we want control of our own borders, to decide who comes in and


when. We don't have that control now and there are people watching this


who are completely infuriated by that. How damaging do you think it


is that institutions like the IMF put out statements saying, and


highlighting, the risks, the uncertainty? Do they have as much


sway as the government would have us believe? Well, the good news is, the


IMF has got a track record of getting forecast heroically wrong.


They completely missed the 2008 recession. They weren't alone on


that. They told us that George Osborne's sensible measures to get


public spending back under control would lead to a terrible shock in


2013. Christine Lagarde actually said, "Do I have to go on my knees


to George Osborne to apologise?" So I think we can relax about this.


Doom and gloom, if you put your head in the oven, and what it is showing


is that the UK will continue to have the fastest growth in Europe and we


come down or .3 points. Does anybody care? The IMF is an institution,


within these hallowed walls in Westminster, people care about what


institutions think but out on the streets, people are thinking, this


is the time to be antiestablishment. We don't want to be told what is


better for us by these lofty organisations like the IMF. Will it


actually sway any books? In the end, people have got to make a choice. --


sway any votes. I'm convinced there will be an adverse economic impact


if we leave. It's why every single survey of business opinion has shown


that majority of those polled in those organisations have said that


we should remain in the European Union and, look, if we don't get the


deal, you confidently but it that we will but I don't make it so sure,


they might say free trade and industry, of course they might. When


it comes to services, which is really important for the British


economy, they might say, we are not so sure about that. The Leave


campaign say, let's be like Canada. At stake in seven years and isn't


yet a done deal and it doesn't give them full access to the single


market. -- it's taken seven years. The fact is, in the end, people have


to decide, do they feel that we have benefited economically and will


continue to benefit and be better off because we are in the EU? That


sounds like you don't think the IMF will actually have that much sway in


itself. It may feed into, as you say, arguments about uncertainty


generally. What about the press? We haven't had that many official


declarations in terms of in or out that there are stories on Adobe


bases from the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun, pro-British stories.


How worried are you about that? The press will do what the press... What


about the influence? People have to decide. People may say, look, I


don't like ripping about the European Union. This is not a


referendum about whether you love the European Union. It's about, what


is the wise thing to do? And I think people will go into the polling


booth and decide, I may not like this or that but do I really want to


take a risk on us damaging our future economic prospects by


leaving? And that's where the IMF warning yesterday will have an


impact. They are leaving us. They are going to form a new coherent


state around the eurozone, from which we will be excluded. There is


dirty work of the crosswords. Yesterday a debate of European


Parliament that the IMF should take our seat. That is what is happening


and we will be excluded from major decisions stop we need to get back


control, and back our full seat and all the governing bodies that decide


regulation and we will completely recover man's world trade. We are


the great free trading nation and we want to go completely international,


working with all our historical links, and that would be a massive


and if it, not just a hard-working people here but some of the poorest


people. That is so wrong because being in the EU, the truth is, it


strengthens our voice in a whole range of fields. I am going to stop


this discussion at this moment. Very temporarily!


Now, the Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale,


But the story of his relationship with a dominatrix, which ended


more than two years ago, hasn't been reported until now,


despite the fact that journalists at several newspapers were aware


So has a conspiracy of silence protected the minister who oversees


the media - or was the story just not newsworthy enough to print?


Earlier this month, the journalism website Byline reported


John Whittingdale had a previous relationship with a professional


But the story stayed out of the newspapers.


Mr Whittingdale said that when he discovered the truth


about what she did in February 2014, he ended the relationship.


At the time of the relationship, Mr Whittingdale was chairman


of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, a post


But campaigners against press intrusion say the fact the story


wasn't reported has raised questions about a potential conflict


of interest involving the man in charge of media regulation


and the motivation of newspapers and broadcasters not to report it.


Four newspapers - the People, the Mail on Sunday, the Sun


and the Independent - learned about it but decided not


In a statement, Mr Whittingdale said what he called


an old story had no influence on any decisions he had taken


Labour has called for him to withdraw from any further


Number Ten said Mr Whittingdale was a "single man and entitled


to a private life" and had the full confidence of the Prime Minister.


This is what he had to say this morning


Can you really successfully regulate the press after last


What about what Labour are saying this morning...


That you shouldn't be taking decisions about the press?


We're joined now by former Lib Dem MP and campaigner


against press intrusion, Evan Harris.


Welcome to the programme. You were with Hacked Off for years and years.


Patkar off has been complaining -- Hacked Off has been complaining


about press intrusion. Now there has been a decision that there was no


public interest in intruding and you are complaining about. The Secretary


of State should not be regulating the press. John Whittingdale has


done two things that are unique. He has first decided to avert the


Government's previous policy that there will be a second part of the


Leveson Inquiry to look at the cover of the police and the press and the


corporate governance failures on hacking, and to cancel a cover-up


investigation is a serious matter. The Prime Minister said it will go


ahead. John Whittingdale in 2013 said it will go ahead. Now his


position is, it might not. What evidence do you have that any of


these decisions were taken because he knew that the papers have these


stories? The second thing he's done is that Parliament passed a law to


give victims access to justice, to sue the press and to encourage


newspapers into the royal charter system. As you know, laws need to be


commenced by a signature of the Secretary of State without further


action. He has chosen to suspend indefinitely commencement of that,


to the applause of the Society of editors to use conferencing made


this announcement without any consultation. What is the answer to


my question? I asked him in a recent meeting... What evidence is there


that given John Whittingdale has a long track record of being against


Leveson style regulation... In the Guardian he made it clear in 2012 as


part of the social media profile that he was opposed to Leveson. In


2012 he was. He voted in favour of it in March


2013 and spoke out in favour of it when the report was announced in


November. There may be something inaccurate a newspaper... But I've


met him... John Whittingdale has always opposed Levenson. That is


wrong. That is wrong. The government's policy, there was a


cross-party agreement signed, was that there would be a part two and


these incentives and access to justice would come forward. What is


the evidence? I want to tell you what he told me, I asked why he had


taken the power to decide whether to sign into law this thing that


Parliament passed, and he said it would keep the press on their toes.


It is not the job of a Secretary of State to do that and until they give


an alternative reason for why the government has decided to intervene


in press regulation, which all parties opposed, newspaper opposed,


there is no other reason why he would be doing that if it wasn't a


suspicion that he wanted to please the editors to stop them. So you are


claiming that he has acted as a minister in the ways you have


described because he knew the newspapers were looking at the


story? There appears to be no other explanation unless it is the case


that the Prime Minister breaks or promises he makes to victims and to


Parliament regardless. What evidence do you have for this? If this was


not the case, why would he not have told the Prime Minister on


appointment, they have got this story on me, there is no public


interest justification and they have not published but if it ever got out


it might be implied there is a conflict of interest. They know I


did not declare an overseas trip that arguably should have been


declared. How did he know when he became a minister that the press


were investigating this? It has been made clear in the articles


published, that not originally in the newspapers but on the website...


You don't know whether he was appointed that he knew the


newspapers were looking at the story. I think that has been made


clear. Do you know? That is a question that should be put to him.


You made the claim that he should have told the Prime Minister. And


asking if he knew there were investigations going on and you are


telling me you don't know. -- I am asking. It has not been disputed by


him that he was approached and he said at the time that he ended it


when I found out what she did. If that is the case, then he should


have told the Prime Minister, if it isn't, his position is much better.


If he didn't know they had a story, how could it be influencing him? A


journalist for the independent, has hacked off been working with him? He


has been following the trial. Have you been working with him on the


story? Even though a lot of people on social media have treated this


story which has been going around for a long time, you will not find


that Hacked Off has linked to this story. You have not been working


with Mystic you sick? No. -- with Mr Cusack. We were asked if we had any


reason to believe if John Whittingdale was seeking to appease


the press and by keeping the examples are given new and we also


applied Hansard references where John Whittingdale said there must be


part to Levenson and we will implement the crime and court act.


Is it not the case in this original story, as it was pitched, that it


was not as we subsequently discovered, that he was dating


someone and he discovered what she was and he ended the dating, but


that he had been actively using this prostitute and that was the original


story and it turned out that there was no evidence for that, isn't that


the case? I have no idea. If there is no public interest in the story,


we don't believe, just like we don't believe with this is deliberately


threesome that the press desperately want to publish... Do you think it


should be published? No. You don't believe the story of the celebrity


should be published despite... A judge has said there is no public


interest. We follow the rule of law, you may not. Editors might... It has


been published in Scotland. There was a judgment that said that rights


were engaged on both sides, freedom of expression and article eight


rights of privacy including the children and the judge said that on


the facts known to the judge, it should not be published. I respect


the judgment... We all respect but do you agree? If a judge had gone


the other way... I don't believe it is my job nor do I believe it is


John Whittingdale's job to decide what the press should print. There


is a code of practice and should be an independent regulator and should


be the rule of law. Is it not the case that Hacked Off has been


pushing the line that the Mail on Sunday was ready to publish this


story but senior editors and management in their organisation


intervened and that is the line your organisation has been pushing


privately? It was then discovered there was not a shred of evidence to


establish that, if that's not the case. James Cusack, who had the


courage to publish press issues, said in his article, which people


can read online, that the independent told him that their


landlords, the Daily Mail, did not want the independent running this


story, the public interest aspects of it because it would damage their


asset. It's quite clear. Do you have any evidence that the Mail on Sunday


pulled this story? I saw what was written in the Independent. That is


not in the -- that is not evidence. They have not defended their


actions, I don't know why you are asking me. What I'm trying to find


out is how close Hacked Off were involved in getting this story out.


We had no involvement in any of the stuff to do with the allegations on


his private life. We were asked not just by that journalist but by


others if there was any evidence that John Whittingdale has changed


government policy giving himself power over the press and we said


yes. He had said it is not necessarily the case that Levenson


part two will go ahead. Sajid Javid said it would not go ahead. No, he


didn't. It's my job to know what this they said. I know you think of


nothing else but that's my understanding of it, that


essentially Sajid Javid killed this. Let me ask Owen Paterson, whenever


Mr Whittingdale found out there were press investigations into this,


should he not have informed the Prime Minister? I think this is a


most extreme the outbreak of humbug. John had done nothing wrong. When he


was a backbencher, as soon as he found out that the woman he was


having an affair which had an embarrassing background, he stopped


the whole thing, 14 months before he became a cabinet minister. When he


found out there were several newspapers come up to four, looking


at this and looking to make something of it, if there was ought


not, that is another matter, but given his role as culture Secretary,


should he not have informed the Prime Minister? I don't know when he


found out and I don't know what form investigations took, investigations


go on the whole time. By sometime last year, he knew that there were


these investigations into his relationship. That is clear, that is


true. He has not denied that. You're talking about evidence as if he is


some rogue elephant pounding around making his old policy. He has made


it clear he does not want state intervention in the press and he is


right on that and any major position on this will be a collective


government 's decision and he will talk to the Prime Minister. We are


back to square one. The court case is going on, it seems sensible to


wait until it is over. Do you believe that as a result of this


that Mr Whittingdale should no longer be involved in the press


regulation element of his job? First of all, his private life is his own


affair and frankly, it is nobody else's business, that is an


important principle. The thing I would like him to do, and where I


agree, is to get on with implementing those two further


changes. Our main criticism of him is that he has not done as far, part


two of the inquiry and the access to justice, and if he did that, we


could move on because that is what is required. I agree. I know that


you are in favour of going down that route, that was not what I asked. I


asked, as a result of this story in the fact that the press was


investigating it, should he no longer be involved in any element of


the press regulation? I don't think that'll happen, is no sign it will


happen. He should get on and do his job. And that is to implement those


two... It was said that he should step back from any further


decisions. I don't think that will happen, that is what Maria said but


I don't think it will happen. What she meant was that the Secretary of


State should have no role. The Prime Minister has said that Levenson is


right and the government should stay out of this. He should not be


putting his thing over commencement of legislation that effect the


press. Now the story is out, there was nothing to hold over him. We


will see where it ends up. Thank you very much.


Now, it's well known that I'm partial to a drop of Blue Nun -


a very wise choice for the responsible drinker


But while here I'm only supposed to drink a measly 14 glasses a week,


if I moved to Chile I could safely quaff up to seven glasses a day!


Researchers at Stanford University have revealed the huge discrepancies


in official guidance on alcohol consumption - drinkers in Poland


and Vietnam are told they can drink two and half times as much as us


While in Australia, the size of a standard drink is over


Why not follow Jo Co's approach and just have a nice cup of tea,


To be in with a chance to win one of these,


see if you can remember when all of this happened.


Thousands have gathered to watch, the fate of this rare visitor


In May last year, hoodies became political.


To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,


send your answer to our special quiz email address -


Entries must arrive by 12.30pm today, and you can see the full


terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.


I'm glad you got all that out! It is coming up to midday on Wednesday,


there is Big Ben on a lovely spring day here in London and that must


mean Prime Minister's Questions are underway and Laura Kuenssberg is


here. Where does Jeremy Corbyn start today? It's quite difficult to know.


Sometimes you can have too much choice and as we have seen recently,


he will decide on one subject and go through that rather doggedly. He


also likes to stick to his subjects. Would he do anything else on tax?


Possibly Labour feel they made some ground on this fallout from the


Panama Papers. It is interesting because a few Labour MPs have said


to me, it was good because it was something they could unite around


and that felt different for them. So often since Jeremy Corbyn has been


in charge it has been disunity and disharmony and things being awkward.


Even at the top of the party! We were thinking about steel, personal


independent payment, tax... And the speed of the news cycle now seems to


get ever faster. We went into the Easter break with steel being the


big domestic story and what could be done to save the steel industry.


Then the Panama Papers came out of the blue and that dominated and that


then moved onto a story about tax returns and the Panama Papers were


kept behind. Now we have John press intrusion, it is difficult to keep


up with it -- we have John Whittingdale. It is quite


exhausting. Maybe there is a danger because things happen so quickly


that political parties are just beginning to get their heads round


them and what they might do or not do about an issue before moving onto


the next thing. I would say, in the background of all of this at the


moment, which is why the difficulties on different front the


government is having, whether about tax all John Whittingdale, it is the


backdrop of the EU referendum which is creating a unique and intense


pressure on what the government is doing. Let's go straight to the


Commons. Warning this morning I had meetings


with ministerial colleagues and in addition to my duties in this House,


I shall have further such meetings later today. Last week I visited a


manufacturing company, which supplied the Tower of London


poppies. Would my right honourable friend agree with me that supporting


small businesses and personal web of further increasing personal income


tax allowance shows that we on this side of the House are the party of


enterprise and inspiration and believe in enabling hard-working


people to keep more of the money they earn? Let me join her in


congratulating the firm that she mentioned. She's absolutely right


that it is small and medium-size businesses that predominantly will


be providing the jobs of the future and we want people to keep more of


their own money to spend as they choose. That's why the historic move


last week to an ?11,000 personal allowance means that people will


have gained, by 2018. They'll be paying ?1000 less per taxpayer and


we will have taken formally and of the lowest paid people out of tax


altogether. That is the action of the Progressive Conservative


government. Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm sure the whole


house will join me in mourning the death today of the dramatist Arnold


Wesker, one of the great playwrights of this country, one of those


wonderful angry young men of the 1950s and, like so many angry young


people, actually changed the face of our country. Yesterday, Mr Speaker,


the European Commission announced new proposals on country by country


tax reporting, so that companies must declare where they make their


profits in the EU and in blacklisted tax havens. Conservative MEPs voted


against the proposal for country by country reporting and against the


blacklisting. Can the Prime Minister now assure us that Conservative MEPs


will support the new proposal? First of all, let me join the right


honourable gentleman in mourning the loss of the famous playwright and


all the work that he did. It's quite right to mention that. Let me... Let


me also welcome... Let me welcome the


country by country tax reporting proposal put forward by Commissioner


Jonathan Hill, appointed by this government, the United Kingdom


Commissioner. This is very much based on the work that we've been


doing, leading the collaboration between countries, making sure that


we share tax information. As we discussed on Monday, this has gone


far faster and far further under this government than under any


previous government. Mr Speaker, if the proposals were put forward by


the British Government, wider Conservative MEPs then vote against


them? Their scenes to be a bit of a disconnect here. -- there seems to


be. The Panama papers exposed scandal situation, where wealthy


individuals seems to believe that corporation tax and other taxes are


something optional. Indeed, as the Member for Rutland and Melton


informed us, it is only for low achievers, apparently for top so


when the HMRC says that the tax gap is ?34 billion, why, then, is he


cutting HMRC staff by 20% and cutting down tax offices which loses


the expertise of people to close that tax gap? I'm glad he wants to


get onto our responsibilities to pay our taxes. I think that's very


important. I thought his tax return was a metaphor for Labour policy. It


was late, it was chaotic, it was inaccurate, it was costed. --


un-costed. He's absolutely right to identify the tax gap and that is why


we closed off loopholes in the last Parliament, equivalent of ?12


billion. We aim to close loopholes in this Parliament equivalent to ?16


billion, so the HMRC is taking very strong action, backed by this


government, backed by the Chancellor, legislated for by this


House, and I think I'm right in saying that since 2010 we put over


?1 billion into HMRC to increase its capabilities to collect the tax that


people should be paying. The difference, I think, between this


side of the House on the right honourable gentleman is we believe


in setting low tax rates and encouraging people to pay them and


it's working. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to the Prime Minister for


drawing attention to my own tax return. There warts and all, the


warts being my handwriting all my generous donation to HMRC. I paid


taxes for companies that he might know quite well. The Prime


Minister... Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister isn't cutting tax abuse,


he's cutting down on tax collectors. The tax collected helps to fund our


NHS and all the other services. Last month, the OBR reported that HMRC


doesn't have the necessary resources to tackle offshore tax disclosures.


The Government is committed to taking ?400 million out of HMRC's


budget by 2020. Will he now commit to reversing that cut, so that we


can collect the tax that will help to pay for the services? I'm afraid


his figures, rather like his tax return, aren't entirely accurate.


The summer budget 2015, we gave an extra ?800 million to HMRC to fund


additional work to tackle tax evasion and noncompliance between


now and 2021. This is going to enable HMRC to recover equivalent of


7.2 billion in tax over the next five years and we've all be brought


in more than 2 billion from offshore tax evaders since 2010. -- we've


already brought in. I think we should try and bring some consensus


to this issue. For years in this country, Labour governments and


Conservative governments have an attitude to the Crown dependencies


and overseas territories that their tax affairs were a matter for them


and their compliance affairs were out of them and their transparency


was a matter for them. This government has changed that. We've


got the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies the table. We


said, you've got to have registers of ownership, you got to collaborate


with the UK Government, you got to make sure people don't hide their


taxes, and it's happening. So when he gets to his feet, he should


welcome the fact that huge progress has been made, raising taxes,


sorting out the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, closing the


tax gap, getting businesses to pay more, giving international


leadership to this issue, all things that never happened under Labour. Mr


Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. The only problem


with it is that the red book states HMRC spending will fall from 3.3


billion to 2.9 billion by 20 20. And in regard to UK Crown dependencies


and overseas territories, only two days ago the Prime Minister said


that he had agreed that they will provide, the overseas territories,


UK law enforcement and tax agencies with full access to information on


the beneficial ownership of companies. There seems to be some


confusion here because the chief minister of Jersey said, in response


to a need for information without delay, where terrorist activities


are involved. We welcome his commitment to fighting terrorism but


is Jersey and all the other dependencies actually going to


provide beneficial ownership information or not? The short answer


to that is yes, they are. And that is what is such a big breakthrough.


I totally accept they are not going as far as us because we are


publishing a register of beneficial ownership. That will happen in June


and we will be one of the only countries in the world to do so. I


think Norway and Spain are the others. What the overseas


territories and Crown dependencies are doing is making sure that we


have full access to registers of beneficial ownership, to make sure


that people aren't invading or avoiding their taxes. In the


interests of giving full answers to his questions, let me give him the


figures for full-time equivalents in HMRC in terms of compliance. The


numbers are going from 25,020 ten to 26,798 in 2015. It's not how much


money you spend on the organisation but how many people you have out


there collecting the taxes and making sure the forms are properly


filled in. The Prime Minister is quite right. The number of people


out there collecting taxes is important. Therefore, why has he


laid off so many staff at HMRC who their four cannot collect those


taxes? In 2013, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister demanded that the


overseas territories rip aside the cloak of secrecy by creating a


public register of beneficial ownership of information. Will he


now make it clear that the beneficial ownership register will


be an absolutely public document, transparent for all to see who


really owns these companies, and whether they are paying their taxes


or not? Let me be absolutely clear. For the United Kingdom, we have


taken the unprecedented step, never done by Labour, never done


previously by Conservatives, of open beneficial ownership registers with


the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. They have to give full


access to the registers of beneficial ownership. We did not


choose the option of forcing them to have a public register because we


believed if that was the case, we'd get into the situation that he spoke


about, where some of them might have walked away from this cooperation


altogether. That's the point. The question is, are we going to be able


to access the information? Yes. Are we going to be able to be sued tax


evaders? Yes. Did any of these things happen under a Labour


government? No. The Prime Minister does talk very tough and I grabbed


him that. The only problem is, it's not a public register he's offering


us. He is only offering us a private register that some people can see.


It's quite interesting that the premiere of the Cayman Islands is to


day apparently celebrating his victory over the Prime Minister


because he is saying the information certainly will not be available


publicly or available directly by any UK on an Cayman Islands agency.


The Prime Minister is supposed to be chasing down tax evasion and tax


avoidance. He's supposed to be bringing it all into the open. If he


cannot even persuade the premiere of the Cayman Islands or Jersey to open


up their books, where is the tough talk bringing the information we


need to collect the taxes that should pay for the services that


people need? I think he's misunderstanding what I've said. In


terms of the UK, it is an absolute first in terms of a register of


beneficial ownership that is public. He keeps saying it's not public. The


British one will be public. Further to that, and I think this is


important because it goes to a question asked by the right


honourable member for Tottenham, we are also saying to foreign companies


that have dealings with Britain that they have to declare their


properties and the properties they own, which will remove a huge


failure of secrecy over the ownership, for instance, of London


property. I'm not saying we've completed all this work but we've


got more tax information exchange, mortgage so beneficial ownership,


more chasing down tax evasion and avoidance, or money recovered from


businesses and individuals and all of these things are things that have


happened under this government. The truth is, he's running to catch up


because Labour did nothing in 13 years. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My


constituents John and Penny Clough, whose daughter Jane was tragically


murdered by her ex-partner whilst he was out on bail, are campaigning to


save Lancashire's nine women's refuges, which are currently at


threat because Labour run Lancashire County Council are proposing to cut


all of their funding. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Clough


family and me that Labour run Lancashire County Council should


prioritise the victims of domestic violence? First of all, my


honourable friend does raise a very moving case and I know the whole


house will wish to join me in sending our sincere condolences to


Mr and Mrs Clough. In terms of making sure we stop violence against


women and girls, nobody should be living in fear of these crimes. That


is why we committed ?80 million of extra funding to 2020 to tackle


violence against women and girls and this does include funding for


securing the future for refuges and other accommodation based services.


But it obviously helps if local councils make the right decisions as


well. The United Kingdom and its offshore territories and


dependencies collectively sits at the top of the financial secrecy


index of the tax Justice network. Since the leaking of the Panama


papers, France has put Panama on a blacklist of uncooperative tax


havens and the Mossad Fonseca offices have been raided by the


police in Panama City. What have British authorities done


specifically in relation to Mossad Fonseca and with Panama since the


leak of the Panama papers? First of all, in terms of who is at the top


of the permit of tax secrecy, I think it is now an fair to say that


about our Crown dependencies and overseas territories as they are now


going to cooperate with the three things that we asked them to do in


terms of the reporting standard, the exchange of tax information and


access to register the beneficial ownership. That is more than we get


out of some states in America, like Delaware. So I think in this House


we should be tough on all those that facilitate lack of transparency but


we should be accurate in the way we do it. He asked what we are doing


about the Panama papers. We have a ?10 million funded cross agency


review to get to the bottom of all the relevant information. It would


hugely be helped if the newspapers and other investigative journalists


now share this information with tax inspectors, so we can get to the


bottom of it, and his final question on blacklists - we are happy to


support blacklists but we don't think you should draw up a blacklist


solely on the basis of a territory raising a low tax rate. We don't


think that is the right approach. That approach the French have


sometimes taken in the past was in terms of taking action against tax


havens, this government has done more than any previous one.


3250 DWP staff has been specifically investigating benefit fraud while


only 300 HMRC staff have been systematically investigating tax


evasion. Surely we should care equally about people abusing the tax


system and those abusing the benefit system. Why has this government had


ten times more staff dealing often with the poorest in society abusing


benefits than with the super-rich evading their taxes? I will look


carefully at his statistics but they sound to me entirely bogus for this


reason. The predominant job of the DWP is to make sure that people


receive their benefits. The predominant job of HMRC is to make


sure people pay their taxes. The 26,000 people I spoke about earlier


are all making sure that people pay their taxes, the clue is in the


title. Many farmers in South Herefordshire are still awaiting


their 2015 payments from the rural payments agency. Nearly four months


after they were due which follows the failure of the RPA website last


year which is causing great personal and financial distress and threatens


the future of farm businesses so will the Prime Minister agreed to


meet farmers on this issue and press the RPA to make the payments by the


end of this month and does he share my view that farmers should receive


interest on the amount overdue? I have recently met with both the NFU


and Welsh NFU and have continued to have meetings with farming


organisations including in my own constituency and I know that have


been problems with the payment system. The latest figures are some


-- that 87% of claims have been paid and bowed -- I believe that the


figures in Herefordshire are in line with the national average but that


is no consolation for those who have not received payments which is why


we have a process and we are working with charities and we made payments


amounting to over ?7 million but we have to make sure that the system


works better in the future. If the British people vote to leave the


European Union, will the Prime Minister remain in office to


implement their decision? Yes. CHEERING


Again on Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the European


Union is not just the world's biggest single market but also an


ample source of foreign and direct investment providing 50% of the


investment we receive and also an excellent platform for supplying


James to thrive and prosper meaning the ability to get the skills they


need and the innovation they need and for my constituency means a


whole load of high-tech companies thriving and prospering as they do


in the UK? I remember my visit to his constituency when the company


showed me a world first in a bicycle that was printed on a 3-D printer. I


did not give it a try but it looked like it might even carry some of my


weight! The single market is 500 million people and that is a great


market for our businesses and services and increasingly the market


that the supply chain is getting more integrated and that is why we


should think carefully before separating ourselves from it. Brain


tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and people under


40 but despite this, research into them received less than 1%, just


over 1% of the UK's national spent on cancer research. This will be the


subject of a debate next Monday in Westminster Hall. Will the Prime


Minister at a word with the Secretary of State for Health so


that the minister answering that debate might be able to bring with


him or her some long overdue good news of change in this area? I'm


very happy to do exactly as he says. It is an important issue. We invest


something like 1.7 billion a year in health research but there is always


a question when it comes to cancer research, the spending has gone up


by a third over the last Parliament the daily 100 35mm hounds but there


is the question of whether that is fairly distributed -- ?135 million.


I have a still produce in my constituency and share concerns


about the future of the industry. The North of England still had


significant manner that drink but it has been held back by green taxes,


high energy costs and emissions targets. What more can he do to help


energy intensive industries? I think he raises an important point and the


changes we are making will save the steel industry over ?400 million by


the end of this Parliament and that is a good example of what we can do.


There was an excellent debate yesterday about this issue, we have


to work on everything we can in terms of procurement, making sure we


are taking action in the EU against dumping and we are. We have to make


sure we reduce energy costs where we can and we stand by to work with any


potential purchaser of the Port Talbot works which will safeguard


steel jobs in other parts of the country to see how we can help on a


commercial basis. I'm satisfied with doing everything we can. We cannot


totally bucked the global trend of this massive overcapacity of steel


and decline in prices but those are the key areas in terms of power and


plant and procurement, all areas where we can help. Research by the


Sutton trust shows turning schools in the academies does not


necessarily improve them. Thousands of excellent primary schools,


parents want them to be continued to be maintained by their local


authority so why are ministers are planning to overall parents and


force those schools to become academies? I think the evidence


shows that academies work as part of our education reforms. Let me give


the evidence. If you look at those schools that converted into


academies, 88% of them are other outstanding or good schools. If you


look at the sponsored academies, often failing schools, if you listen


and look at what happened with the schools that were often failing but


were now sponsored by academies, you have seen on average a 10%


improvement over the first two years. All the evidence is that


results are better, freedoms lead to improvements and where there are


problems, intervention happens far faster with academies. We have 1.4


million more children in good or outstanding schools and we should


finish the job. The Prime Minister has met many


great people but I believe he has yet to meet the Vale of Evesham very


open does the asparagus man. Would you like to join me for the upcoming


British asparagus festival which starts on St George's Day and show


his support for our fantastic farming industry? I'm happy to say


that my honourable friend's constituency is only one


constituency away, we share the same railway line so if there is an


opportunity for some great British asparagus I would be happy to join


him. Can I take the Prime Minister back to his response to the


honourable member's drop handle, it was a truly dreadful case. Women's


refuges are facing absolute crisis. The changes the government proposes


to make to housing benefit will force the closure of women's


refuges. He needs urgently to look again at these changes because


unless he makes refuges exempt, they will be closing up and down the


country. Can he do it? What I would say is what we did in the last


Parliament with rape crisis centres we are doing the same type of thing


with these refuges and that is why the ?80 million of funding is so


important. It is widely Secretary of State has written to local


authorities to explain that this money is available to make sure


those refuges are there. As part of world autism awareness week last


week, the National Autistic Society launched its biggest ever awareness


campaign. Young Alex Cunliffe the star of the film, was here in the


house and met many MPs this week -- Ruairidh Young Alex, the star


some 50% of autistic people don't even go out in public because of


what people think and their reaction. Will he meet with me and


the Cherokee to discuss how the government can support this campaign


and how we can tackle the social isolation of so many families -- and


the charity. Let me pay tribute to my right honourable friend who has


been campaigning and legislating on this issue now for many years


including the landmark legislation that went through in the last


Parliament. We have been working closely with the autism aligned and


have invested some ?325,000 since 2014 but we don't do more in terms


of helping -- helping families with autistic children and raising the


profile of the understanding of what being autistic is all about. Let me


put in a plug for the strange incident of the dog in a night which


is still available at the Whitehall Theatre, it is excellent and will


give you a better explanation of autism and perhaps anything we can


discuss in this house. Authorities in the room, El Salvador and Panama


have raided offices of Mossack Fonseca, seizing documents and


computer equipment but nobody has knocked on the door of their branch


in the UK. While recognising the operational independence of our


enforcement agencies, does he share my deep concern that come as we


speak, documents are no doubt being shredded and databases being wiped,


undermining the opportunity to bring further potential wrongdoing to


like? She makes an important point which is that we need to make sure


that all the evidence coming out Panama is properly investigated and


that is right we have set up a special cross agency team including


the National Crime Agency, HMRC and other relevant bodies to make sure


we get to the bottom of what happened. She is right to reference


the fact that these organisations are operationally independent and it


would be quite wrong for a minister or Prime Minister to order an


investigator into a particular building in a particular way, that


is not a river, we want to cross in this house. Empower the National


crime agency and HMRC, give them resources and let them get on with


the job. Can I draw his attention to the tragic death of a 20 month --


21-month-old baby when she was stamped on by her mother so


violently that it prompted her heart. Yet she had been known to


social services since the day she was born, they knew about the


violent boyfriends, the domestic violence, they saw the doors kicked


in and smelt the cannabis, they saw the bruisers, the cuts, the


fingerprints on her little thighs and they did nothing -- bruises. He


will understand that people want to know how this could have happened


yet they are concerned to know that the serious case review has on its


panel people who are directly involved in the


organisationorganisations are being investigated. Will he look at what


we can do to make this and other serious case reviews more


independent so we can make sure that no other child suffers the life and


death that this little girl did? I think my honourable friend is


absolutely right to raise this. Obviously in the work we all do we


hear about some hideous and horrific incidents but anybody watching


television that night and seeing the description of what happened to that


girl could it simply took your breath away that people could behave


in such a despicable way towards their own children. There is no


punishment in the world in my view that fits that sort of crime carried


out by their own parent. There will be a serious case review and I will


look carefully at the suggestions he makes and I know the Secretary of


State for Education will do so as well. There are criticisms of the


way these cases are done but in this case we must get on with the review


because we have to get to the bottom of what went wrong. There are


currently over 7000 people in the UK needing an organ transplant


including 139 children and many will die because of a shortage of


available organs. The Welsh Labour government has already introduced


ground-breaking legislation for opt out organisation in Wales so will


you join me in supporting the campaign for opt out organ donation


throughout the UK? I'm always happy to look at this again having looked


at it before and have not come out in favour of opting out. We debated


in the last Parliament and made a lot of moves to making opt in much


easier and we found that if you look at different hospitals and areas of


the country there are different record in terms of how well they do.


My position is that it is something we should support and continue to


drive but this house can vote on the issue about whether it wants to go


down the Welsh track rather than the track we are on but personally I say


we should make opt in better. He will be well aware that our


colleague Lord Bates has just started a 2000 mile walk from one is


Iris to Rio de Janeiro, arriving in time for the Olympics -- Buenos


Aires. Will he join me in wishing him well on this epic journey and


committing his government to uphold the values and principles of the


Olympic truce? I have already written to Michael Bates to wish him


well and give support for the work he has done over many years. He


leaves me a bit of a hole in the House of Lords where he has been


doing fantastic work for the Home Office on security issues so we wish


him a good walk and a speedy return. At Ealing hospital the experienced


doctors I met with last week are dismayed that the government's own


equality assessment of their new contract find it discriminates


against women which is over half of them. As he is a self-confessed


feminist, leading a progressive government, will he... So he says.


Will the reverse this blatant injustice which has no place in


2016? I am grateful for her question and backhanded compliment! I would


say that this contract is actually very pro-women because it involves a


13% basic pay rise, because it restricts the currently horrendous


hours that some junior doctors are working that are unsafe, and because


it gives greater guarantees about levels of pay and the amount of


money that doctors will get. As people start to work on it and with


it, they will see it is very pro-women. Over 200,000 economic


migrants came from the European Union in the period for which we


have figures and yet the propaganda sheet said at the British people


says we maintain control of our borders. As we withdrawn from the


free movement of people all sit -- is it simply untrue? The truth is


that economic migrants coming and to the EU don't have the right to come


to the UK, they are not European nationals. They are nationals of


Pakistan or Morocco or Turkey. None of them have the right so it is very


important and it is important we send information stew households


because then they can see the truth about what is proposed. What he has


put forward is classic of the sort of scare stories we get, Britain has


borders, Britain will keep its borders, we have the best of both


worlds. Still at university at the University of sporting excellence


elite sports have been rocked in recent months about an international


doping scandal that threatens the entire country is thrown out or


major and petitions. Does he agree that the world anti-doping agency


needs further support and can he tell me what further action can be


taken? I think he is right to raise it, Wada has made a lot of advances


in recent years. There is a relevance to our anti-corruption


Summit in May when we will be looking at corruption in sport and


bringing forward new codes of practice to adopt in this country


and we hope others also do. There is also the question about whether


doping should be a specific criminal offence which is something we should


be debating. What progress has been made in impairment in Sir Bruce


Keogh's ten clinical standards published in December 2013 which are


essential for rolling out the seven-day NHS? Perhaps I can write


specifically on the clinical standards but the truth is that what


is good is that he and others in the NHS support this vision of a


seven-day NHS and recognise that we should pay tribute to all those


doctors and nurses who work at weekends already because it is very


important but what we are trying to move toward is an NHS where the


individual has access to their family doctor seven days a week and


also where hospitals work on or seven databases because it will save


lives and improve care and I will write to him about the specific


detail. Parent governors play a key role in local schools supporting


their children's education and performing an important civic duty.


If the Prime Minister aware of the sadness and anger which has resulted


from the forced Academy 's announcement that the duty for each


school to have parent governors will be removed? Will he urgently review


this attack on parents? I'm delighted the Honourable lady asked


this question because we will be debating it later but let me be


clear, we support parent governors, we think they have a great role to


play but no school should think that is simply -- that by simply having


parent governors you have solved the problem about engaging with parents.


Let me say that there is something in the Labour motion today that it


actually inaccurate and should be withdrawn. It says, the white Paper


proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing


bodies. It does no such thing. As well as not getting his tax return


in on time coming is bringing forward motions that are simply


wrong. So Prime Minister's Questions comes


to an end. It used a version 12 30p. Now we are lucky if it finishes at


12:40pm. The subject on the front tax, tax, tax and then a bit more


tax from the EU now moving to beef up exchange of information between


various territories to other HMRC -- to whether HMRC in this country has


enough resource to climb down on tax evasion and aggressive tax


avoidance, to the role of the overseas territories and Crown


dependencies and whether the register of registered companies in


these various territories is now going to allow proper investigation


by the British authorities. It was all covered between the two


frontbenchers, then we got Angus Robertson and we moved to tax, tax,


tax. He raised the issues with those two questions, so it is clearly


still the big issue in Westminster. Before we get some reaction, let's


hear what you thought of today's PMQs.


Well, it still tax, in that consistent line of questioning and


e-mail so stop Mike Wilkinson said, Jeremy Corbyn started off on a good


know but once got embroiled in technical detail he lost his


audience. That in David Cameron's worst period as PM Jeremy Corbyn


still can't land a decisive blow him is worrying. Another viewer said the


questions were too long and delivered a clumsy way. David


Cameron is much better at thinking on his feet and has an easy ride.


Spencer says, Cameron budget request and again. Jeremy Corbyn the winner


by a mile. Under a different subject, this from Gareth Hughes


says, David Cameron says he would remain in office to represent the


will of the British people in the event of a Leave vote on the 23rd of


June in response to Doug -- Douglas Carswell was Bob question. Total


fantasy. He will be gone within a week.


We may be struggling to keep our jobs if that turns out to be right.


I'm going to come onto that because it an important issue. But first,


did we learn anything on the tax exchanges or was it just more of the


same? What we learned is just how big an issue this has been and how


much it has pervaded everything in politics over the last ten days. We


had Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas and Angus Robertson, so from across


the parties, people thinking this is a bruise that is absolutely worth


pressing on the Prime Minister in terms of his own experience in the


last ten days. I don't think we've learned very much that was new but


it tells us the depth of feeling and that politicians in opposition


parties believe it's absolutely worth carrying on trying to hang


this around the Prime Minister. In a less adversarial political system,


Hilary Benn, commentators could well conclude that there is broad


consensus on what should be done on tax avoidance and tax evasion. I


think there's an element of truth in that. What was striking was that the


Prime Minister did not answer Jeremy's first question about why


Conservative MEPs have been voting against this, and I trust that they


will now be instructed to change their... Can the British party


leader instruct the MEPs? He might want to ring them up and say, since


I've just told the House of Commons this is an I support it might be


helped lift you would stop trying to obstruct it. That's the first point.


Secondly, I absolutely welcome what has been agreed with the overseas


territories and Crown dependencies, apart from the two Prime Minister


mentioned on Monday, but there is let it a question I raised myself -


if the British register, which I think is going to come live in June,


is going to be available to the public, the register beneficial


ownership, what exactly is the argument for saying to the overseas


territories and Crown dependencies, you don't have to do that now,


especially when two years ago the Prime Minister wrote to them arguing


it should be open on one of the reasons he gave them was that it


would help to tackle crime. If it's going to help to tackle crime, he


should press the point. I understand that but didn't you get the


impression that he thought that if he forced that particular point on


them, it could delay the whole business of transparency and that he


thought that he had made major progress by allowing automatic


access by the authorities in this country, HMRC, the National Crime


Agency, the serious fraud squad, to these registers. You and I may not


be able to see them but the guys and women who are going to do all the


hard work would get to see them, they would now have access that they


didn't have before, including two beneficial ownership. It is and


that's why it is a step forward in the same way that the European Union


actually makes a point that I was arguing earlier, the EU has just


agreed the fourth anti-money-laundering directive,


which is also going to make things more transparent, including for


those who have a need to know, investigative journalists, and that


is a really good example of how working with our allies in Europe


helps us to tackle this problem. What's your take on this? The hero


was David Cork. He brought in measures to close 40 loopholes and I


think that 12 were brought in and he's looking at bringing in another


60 million with liberals. Someone told me that Jack Straw said we


could have done more in our time and David has done an awful lot of this.


What I didn't quite get was wide Jeremy Corbyn was buying on about


transparency. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if he pushed the


overseas territories to far, and it's all absolutely open, for a


reason I don't totally understand, they won't play ball. The key thing


surely is HMRC and the National Crime Agency have access to the


books on the information. That's what's really important. That would


be a game changer. I'm totally sympathetic with the Primus's


comment that we will be transparent but if we want all these overseas


territories to play ball, don't push them to the transparency. Make sure


we have total access our agencies. There are two reasons why Labour is


keen to keep pressing on this. Firstly, Jeremy Corbyn has


campaigned on these issues for a long time, tax transparency and what


happens around the world, so this is one of his core issues, but they


know that what's happened in the last ten days makes this a


vulnerability for the Prime Minister. It even lead Jeremy Corbyn


to do is an quite unusual, which was to crack rather a good joke at the


prime list's expense, joking that he paid more tax than some of the


companies that David Cameron might know quite well did. For Jeremy


Corbyn, this is a good, not easy, but a straightforward political


issue, even though behind-the-scenes there is quite a lot of consensus


that has meant that progress has been made here. So the accusation


that the Government's done nothing and sat back and nothing has changed


in the last couple of years doesn't quite wash, but it's a vulnerable


political area for the Prime Minister, as we've seen in the last


ten days. It's clearly been a bruising time for the Prime


Minister, not just on this issue but a whole host of issues, including


steel, the budget and the Panama papers and so on. Isn't there a


danger, given the pivotal role the Prime Minister will play in the


Remain campaign, that what damages the Prime Minister risks damaging


the Remain campaign? Yes, indeed, because the Prime Minister is the


figure who is going to be upfront and central in the Remain campaign.


That is the way that they are planning to play it, that is how


they have been playing it so far. And, of course, anything that dog


damages trust in him does damage how much the message that comes out of


his mouth, how that will land with members of the public who are


undecided. Particularly because he needs to get centrist and


centre-left voters and these are not great issues to attract them. And we


understand that there is some nervousness among Remainders that


the message that has been put forward isn't landing very well with


Labour voters because it appears that it is coming out of the


Conservative Prime Minister's mouth, therefore that is a problem for


them. There is almost a retro feel about all of this, however serious


these stories really are stop we've had embarrassment or perceived


embarrassment from Conservatives over financial dealings. We had


split over Europe, difficulties over an industrial issue like what's


happening in steel, and then today this story about John Whittingdale.


It's got a touch of the 1980s about it and it is definitely difficult


for David Cameron. I would suggest that what we are seeing is the


difficulty that Number Ten is having in keeping a grip on the sort of


everyday business of government and a grip on this big political


campaign. Sticking with this theme, what was the significance, given


that Mr Carswell, the one Ukip MP, that he knew what the answer would


be gone because it is the pro forma answer from the Prime Minister, why


did he ask him, would he stepped down as Prime Minister in the event


of a leave vote? I just wonder if he is trying to prepare the ground for


something that I understand is going to happen in the next week or so.


Senior figures on the Leave side believe very strongly that if there


is a vote for us to leave the EU that people who argued on their case


should absolutely be involved in the negotiations over the kind of


relationship that we have with the rest of the EU and how we depart.


They believe that very strongly. They believe that David Cameron, the


Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, should not be the only people in


charge of those the glaciations. They would have to bring in someone


like Michael Gove? -- those negotiations. They absolutely


believe they would have the right to be around that table if they have


won the argument and I expect in the next week or so, we'll hear that


argument being put publicly. I wonder if that's what Douglas cars


will was trying to prepare the ground for. What's your view? You


said earlier that you thought you were going to win. I was interested


in that because so far, mostly poor people have gone that far. You can


leave them, rightly or only, that the wind is behind you on this so if


it is and you are right, who should do the negotiations to exit? You get


away from Westminster, you get away from the London bubble, you get out


into the counties. I was in Northern Ireland last week. The strength of


feeling on the ground is remarkable. I'm not arguing about that. My


question was quite specific - who should do the renegotiation, or the


negotiation, the exit turns if you are right? Well, there will be a


mandate. This will give real strength to the team who are


negotiating. But who should do it? It's got to be people who are


committed to us leaving the EU, getting the power to make our own


laws, getting the 350 million back which goes every week. So not the


Prime Minister? Prime Minister has been quite clear all along that he


will stay as the Prime Minister but there has got to be a team who are


absolutely committed to leaving the EU established in the UK as an


independent country and taking all the advantages of being the fifth


biggest economy in the world. So by definition that couldn't include the


Prime Minister or the Chancellor because they are not committed to


leave. I think there is continuity as well. That's important. The 24th


of June is my birthday. There will be a great celebration and I hope we


will hear that we will be leaving but nothing will change on that day.


I understand that. You think the team would have to include Leave


people? We are very short on time. I will just ask you, Hilary Benn, are


you worried that given that Conservative voters looked like they


could split 55/45 to come out, so those who are in Remain will need


Labour voters to come out, is enough being done to get these Labour


voters out? All the polls show that Labour voters support remaining in


the European Union and that Jeremy is making a big speech about the


case for remaining tomorrow. On your original question, which is the


position of the Prime Minister, I'd like to see him out of office very,


very quickly but the time to do that as a general election. The decision


about our place in Europe is for the next 15 years. Not my actual


question! You are getting as bad as him. The question was, are you happy


that enough is being done to get that Labour vote out? We are doing a


laugh -- a lot and we will do more because I think once the local and


mayoral elections are out of the way, people will really turn their


attention to the biggest decision we've faced for over 40 years. I


know when to quit when I'm behind! Laura, you can quit as well. From


our programme, that's all. Now, later today Tim Farron


will publish plans on how the UK could offer sanctuary to 3,000


unaccompanied child refugees. The Lib Dem leader has just returned


from the refugee camp at Idomeni Among his recommendations,


the expansion of family reunification rules and major


changes to the foster Tim Farron, welcome. In recent


months, the Government's doubled the funding commitment to the region and


said the UK will accept more unaccompanied child refugees. Should


they be doing more? Yes, they should. I'm very much in favour of


the support that the UK Government gives to the region itself around


Syria, Lebanon and so on. What the UK Government is not doing is


helping a single one of those refugees trapped in Europe and the


ones I met yesterday, almost all of them were families. I met very many


small children and they are trapped now because the failure to make the


EU and Turkey deal work properly, which David Cameron bears some


response ability for, means you've now got thousands and thousands of


families trapped in squalid and desperate circumstances and in need


of help and what we've been saying for more than six months now is that


police the UK Government could do for those refugees are stranded in


Europe is to help some of, 3000, of the unaccompanied child refugees


that are currently in Europe. There are about 30,000 at the moment and


we know at least 10,000 have gone missing in the hands of traffickers,


those people who, as children, will very now often be sublet to


exploitation of the most horrific kind.


We have shown some pictures of you at that refugee camp and there has


also been news from that area where Macedonian police have tried to


disperse a crowd of refugees who were tearing at barbed wire,


separating the Idomeni camp on the Greek side of the border from the


camp and we can show some pictures about now. How tense was the


situation with refugees when you were there? Very tense. I went right


up to the fence, which incidentally was erected in 48 hours by the


Macedonian authorities, a huge fence, and it shows what authorities


can do when they put their minds to it in a short period, reminding us


that if we really want to help 3000 orphaned children we could do it


quickly. My experience there was of real tension, there were armoured


vehicles, walking to the fence weapons were pointed through the


side of them at us. There was a real sense that there is great attention.


What has happened, Idomeni was a place where people who were making


their way north to join family and friends in Germany and Sweden for


example, would stop for a night on their way and there were a few


hundred people at any given time but now there are 15,000. It is squalid


and tense and the overwhelming majority are families and there are


hundreds and thousands of young children. This is an issue about


unaccompanied child refugees who are a huge risk to traffic smugglers and


criminals. Should the government be doing more to help them


specifically? We are talking about 30,000 unaccompanied child refugees.


I think what Tim has explained is very interesting but we have to be


incredibly careful not just taking pure, lonely children from eight


site in Europe where they are safer than they would be in Syria because


that could act as temptation for children to be sent. Are they safe


in Europe if they are alone when we have talked about people smugglers,


they could just disappear, should we not be focusing our attention? It is


incredibly fraught but the current policy is to take children with


their families from the border with Syria where they are in real danger.


Tim has seen the camp on the Greek Macedonian border and they are


probably at less risk there than on the Syrian border. Do you accept


that? We are talking about difficult choices. We should be doing our bit.


We have been arguing for a long time as Tim has that we should be taking


unaccompanied children. The 30,000 he is talking about. I think the


figure was 3000. If it was our children who found themselves in


that situation, separated from their parents, would we want other


countries to say, we will bring you in? We have always had a


disagreement with the government on this because it is right that we are


putting a lot into humanitarian aid to support people in the region but


from talking to refugees myself, those who have made that dangerous


journey to come to Europe, we should not penalised them by saying we will


not offer shelter to those who are vulnerable to have made it as well


as those in the camps in the region. Tim Farron, thank you very much.


Now, if you've been concentrating over the past few days you may have


noticed the latest fad to sweep Westminster -


All those fascinating details about politicians' income, taxable


But have our guests been paying attention to the deluge


It's time to play, whose tax return is it anyway.


In 2014 this MP's salary was half what the Prime Minister makes -


though that may not be the case anymore.


They also earned ?1,350 from delivering lectures


and ?500 from taking part in surveys.


Who is it? Jeremy Corbyn. You have been concentrating!


Leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.


This politician earned just under ?105,000 before tax,


They claimed just under ?12,000 in non-taxable expenses,


Nicola Sturgeon. You can be a bit more enthusiastic, you are right!


Let's stay with Scotland but make it a bit more tricky.


The leaders of three other Scottish parties also released their tax


They all earn the same but one underpaid their tax by ?3.20.


No! None! They don't know who the leaders are!


It's Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson,


who declared she still owed the tax payer ?3.20 in the self-assessment


Back in Westminster, this politician reduced his taxable


income from his salary to fund a bigger pension pot.


Perhaps they learnt about that from Chairman


Yes, it's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.


And the answer to the year was 2006. If you press that button we will


find out who has won... Well done. Very skilful. This is our winner,


congratulations. I have never been there. We will have an awayday!


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


Jo will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big


I will be back tomorrow night on BBC just after Question Time I hope you


can join us for all of that. Let BBC Two whisk you away


to a world of luxury, boasting an impressive


celebrity clientele... I've seen somebody spend


over half a million. ..and a free gift


you'll want to treasure forever.


Download Subtitles