:00:07. > :00:08.A referendum vote that goes against the EU.
:00:09. > :00:15.What message are European voters trying to send?
:00:16. > :00:18.It's was not a vote about Dutch membership, and two thirds
:00:19. > :00:20.of the country stayed away from the polls,
:00:21. > :00:22.but the No campaign here will still take
:00:23. > :00:30.Should we have hope or fear for the future of the British steel
:00:31. > :00:37.industry, with Sanjeev Gupta the front runner to buy it?
:00:38. > :00:43.It was done on the back of an envelope because we didn't have
:00:44. > :00:48.access. It started a week ago, so we don't have any access to the data.
:00:49. > :00:49.So you have done a back of the envelope calculation? Yes.
:00:50. > :00:51.Also tonight, how to buy a Kalashnikov on Facebook.
:00:52. > :01:03.We found a number of portable defence systems, shoulder fired
:01:04. > :01:04.anti-aircraft systems. These are basically a threat to civilian
:01:05. > :01:06.aviation. And I'll show you mine,
:01:07. > :01:08.if you'll show me yours. We'll discuss how far
:01:09. > :01:13.is transparency the answer to the questions raised
:01:14. > :01:22.by the Panama Papers. Well, a blow to the EU
:01:23. > :01:27.tonight in a public vote. A Dutch vote on the EU
:01:28. > :01:35.treaty with Ukraine. Normally it wouldn't
:01:36. > :01:37.come to a referendum, of signatures can get
:01:38. > :01:40.it on to the ballot, And according to exit polls
:01:41. > :01:44.in the vote today, the Dutch have rejected that Ukraine Association
:01:45. > :01:47.Agreement. But one can only suspect that wasn't
:01:48. > :01:50.really what the voters It's being seen by those who want
:01:51. > :01:54.Brexit as a key test of public Nigel Farage has been out
:01:55. > :02:02.in the Netherlands campaigning. How does it play into the debate
:02:03. > :02:06.around our referendum? Alex Forsyth is our correspondent
:02:07. > :02:16.in Amsterdam and joins us now. Start by giving us the school, the
:02:17. > :02:20.margin of victory for the rejection of people and the turnout. The
:02:21. > :02:23.results are still coming in but we've had the exit poll and as the
:02:24. > :02:29.results have come in they seem to confirm it, a turnout of 32% which
:02:30. > :02:34.is significant because the threshold required to make the referendum
:02:35. > :02:39.result valid was 30%. It has just snuck over that. In terms of the
:02:40. > :02:43.result, the exit poll suggests 64% of voters who went to the polls have
:02:44. > :02:50.rejected the idea of ratifying the deal between the EU and the Ukraine.
:02:51. > :02:53.What that means in reality is still questionable because 27 other
:02:54. > :02:58.countries in the EU have backed the deal, the European Parliament has
:02:59. > :03:02.backed it. Now the Dutch Foreign Minister Mark Rutte has said that we
:03:03. > :03:08.will have to look at this again, that the no vote cannot be ignored.
:03:09. > :03:12.He will talk to the cabinet in the Netherlands and to the EU and decide
:03:13. > :03:17.how to progress without -- the Dutch Prime Minister. Although this was
:03:18. > :03:22.ostensibly about the Ukraine deal with the EU, there was a bigger
:03:23. > :03:26.issue, a test of your scepticism in the Netherlands because this was
:03:27. > :03:29.triggered by the Eurosceptic campaign, using a new Dutch law
:03:30. > :03:33.which was designed to promote democracy to get a petition
:03:34. > :03:37.signatures to get the referendum to happen and they say that the result
:03:38. > :03:43.is a victory showing that people are frustrated about the EU and they are
:03:44. > :03:46.not prepared to take it any more. Commenting on the Brexit debate here
:03:47. > :03:50.and how much the Dutch Eurosceptics are aware of what's going on here
:03:51. > :03:54.and how they are timing this against British events. And by being Anglo
:03:55. > :04:01.centric in thinking that way? Is the British vote playing a role in Dutch
:04:02. > :04:07.politics? Undoubtedly it is, I was at the campaign event in a town
:04:08. > :04:11.north of Amsterdam a couple of days ago and Nigel Farage was there. It
:04:12. > :04:16.was a Eurosceptic rally, organised by the people behind the reference
:04:17. > :04:20.campaign but he was greeted with a very warm reception, people knew who
:04:21. > :04:24.he was and the sentiment was that, we want a node in the referendum,
:04:25. > :04:30.which they see as giving a bloody nose to Brussels, as giving a signal
:04:31. > :04:37.to the UK that you can do the same -- a no vote. As you might expect,
:04:38. > :04:41.the Brexit camps in the UK have left on the result of ready saying that
:04:42. > :04:46.it shows that we aren't alone in our concerns about the EU in terms of
:04:47. > :04:50.its expansion and what they see as its democratic shortcomings. By
:04:51. > :04:54.trying to use this result to embolden the Eurosceptic campaign
:04:55. > :04:59.and it might do that but this is a singular result, on paper to do with
:05:00. > :05:02.the Ukraine. Although it plays into the Eurosceptic argument and will be
:05:03. > :05:06.seen as a boost to the Brexit campaign in the UK, one might argue
:05:07. > :05:07.that its impact on the public could be fairly limited in Britain. Thank
:05:08. > :05:09.you for joining us. Daniel Hannan, the prominent
:05:10. > :05:26.eurosceptic, is on the And Michael van Gaal ten is funded
:05:27. > :05:30.at yes campaign joins us -- Michael van Halten. What do you make of
:05:31. > :05:34.this? In every referendum, people have voted against Brussels, we had
:05:35. > :05:37.one in Greece and in Denmark and now the Netherlands. People have had
:05:38. > :05:43.enough of a remote and self-serving bureaucracy. A funny question but
:05:44. > :05:49.wiped wouldn't people vote -- why wouldn't people vote against
:05:50. > :05:54.muscles, given that this is an issue that people don't know much about?
:05:55. > :05:58.-- against Brussels. Isn't it telling how you put the question? It
:05:59. > :06:03.assumes that the European system lacks legitimacy and public support
:06:04. > :06:08.and that of course we would want to kick it. Like in a by-election, the
:06:09. > :06:11.incumbent government always loses them because people want to keep
:06:12. > :06:16.them on their toes. But the idea of Europe is that we would all get
:06:17. > :06:19.along better, that the Schengen group would soothe those animal
:06:20. > :06:23.cities but in reality, Europe isn't working. I don't think that this
:06:24. > :06:28.vote was really about the Ukraine agreement, which I voted for in the
:06:29. > :06:32.European Parliament. On almost every metric the European Union has failed
:06:33. > :06:37.to deliver what it promised, greater prosperity and national cohesion.
:06:38. > :06:41.You have to agree that every time the voters are given a chance to
:06:42. > :06:49.vote on anything European, they vote against it, don't they? Absolutely,
:06:50. > :06:53.there is a big problem for Brussels and the EU in terms of how we
:06:54. > :06:58.communicate with citizens on European issues. It has to be said
:06:59. > :07:03.that in this election, the referendum today, only one third of
:07:04. > :07:06.voters took the trouble to vote and actually much of the debates during
:07:07. > :07:10.the referendum campaign has been about the referendum law itself.
:07:11. > :07:14.This was the first time that we have had a referendum under this new law
:07:15. > :07:19.and two thirds of voters stayed at home. Many people who support the
:07:20. > :07:24.agreement stayed at home. The discussion will be about the EU, but
:07:25. > :07:29.also about how we conduct politics. A lot of people supporting Britain
:07:30. > :07:32.staying in the EU will say, goodness gracious, basically, if the Dutch,
:07:33. > :07:37.one of the original six members, one of the original three, the Benelux
:07:38. > :07:42.concept, the core of Europe, if they are showing such satisfaction with
:07:43. > :07:49.the project, this is really a very serious problem -- such
:07:50. > :07:55.dissatisfaction. It is clear that it is a problem for Dutch politics and
:07:56. > :07:59.politics in the EU. Issues that ten, 20 years ago could be taken behind
:08:00. > :08:03.closed doors and were self-evident now being questioned by people and
:08:04. > :08:06.that is a healthy process, but one that politics has not become
:08:07. > :08:10.accustomed to. Politicians do not know how to discuss and sell these
:08:11. > :08:17.issues to the voters and that is something we have to address. Can
:08:18. > :08:21.this be seen as a kind of anti-elite vote, as much as an anti-European
:08:22. > :08:27.vote? Everywhere you see voters, like in the US, choosing outsiders,
:08:28. > :08:32.and there is a bit of that? There is an element of that, people look at
:08:33. > :08:36.the Brussels project, they see politicians and the big banks and
:08:37. > :08:39.the big arms companies and the establishment and a feud diplomats
:08:40. > :08:44.and civil servants and they say, what's in it for everybody else, a
:08:45. > :08:48.valid question to ask. We have democracy because we have got away
:08:49. > :08:55.from self-serving oligarchies. It is a should aim -- it is a pity that
:08:56. > :08:58.people see Brussels going in the opposite direction. Is it going to
:08:59. > :09:02.play much in the British debate? Only in the sense that we are not
:09:03. > :09:11.alone, almost every referendum now, France, the Netherlands, Denmark,
:09:12. > :09:15.goes against British integration, it is not a British eccentricity. If
:09:16. > :09:19.the British were to vote to leave the EU, would there be pressure for
:09:20. > :09:24.a membership referendum in another lens? No, there is still massive
:09:25. > :09:27.support for membership of the EU in the Netherlands and people clearly
:09:28. > :09:32.saw it as a separate issue. People voted because they felt that the
:09:33. > :09:37.Ukraine was not the right country to do a deal with. The Dutch
:09:38. > :09:40.overwhelmingly support membership of the EU. Thank you for joining us.
:09:41. > :09:43.Now before we leave the subject of Europe, just time
:09:44. > :09:52.will make its most important political decision for a generation,
:09:53. > :09:56.whether to leave or remain in the European Union.
:09:57. > :09:59.Some have made up their minds, but if you are struggling
:10:00. > :10:02.through the quagmire of competing arguments,
:10:03. > :10:07.Over the next two months, Newsnight will be devoting a series
:10:08. > :10:11.of special programmes to some of the key issues,
:10:12. > :10:18.like migration, security, the economy and sovereignty.
:10:19. > :10:21.Only you can decide how you will vote but we can arm
:10:22. > :10:24.you with some of the information you need to make a choice,
:10:25. > :10:32.so join us for the first of these special shows this Monday.
:10:33. > :10:36.The starting gun has now been fired on the future
:10:37. > :10:40.Tata Steel said today the sales prospectus for its UK operations
:10:41. > :10:42.will be released on Monday, and they are then looking
:10:43. > :10:50.The Business Secretary Sajid Javid was in Mumbai today,
:10:51. > :10:51.talking to Tata Steel, and stressing that he's
:10:52. > :10:53.talking to other companies who are potential buyers.
:10:54. > :10:56.The most prominent of those, some would say the only show
:10:57. > :10:58.in town, in fact, is a company called Liberty Steel
:10:59. > :11:04.It's a newish company which has recently acquired some other
:11:05. > :11:08.But can this bid realistically herald a new era for British steel?
:11:09. > :11:18.Our policy editor Chris Cook reports.
:11:19. > :11:24.What links the Palm, this development in Dubai, and offers
:11:25. > :11:29.above a sandwich shop on the Isle of Man, and the troubled Tartar
:11:30. > :11:33.steelworks at Port Talbot? The answer is the man who hopes to turn
:11:34. > :11:40.those steelworks around, Sanjeev Gupta, the head of Liberty. Today,
:11:41. > :11:46.the Business Secretary was in Mumbai to talk to Tata about the prospects
:11:47. > :11:52.of selling the steelworks on. One company that has come forward,
:11:53. > :11:55.Liberty International, which has an interest in the British Steel
:11:56. > :11:59.industry. I met with them, that is one example. What I would like to
:12:00. > :12:05.see is many more coming forward and I hope that is what happens. Sanjeev
:12:06. > :12:12.Gupta's company recently took over part of Scotland and before that, a
:12:13. > :12:15.plant in Newport. For a spell that thought the plant was running, he
:12:16. > :12:22.paid the staff for three months and gave them half pay for 15 months. We
:12:23. > :12:26.have had a good experience, our members were there over the
:12:27. > :12:29.transition period, short time workers and they were supported
:12:30. > :12:33.through the process and we've been able to work constructively with him
:12:34. > :12:37.and with the company which I think bodes well for any future
:12:38. > :12:43.arrangement. What does Sanjeev Gupta plan to do? A brief the local MP
:12:44. > :12:47.earlier today. In the end he would like to close down the blast
:12:48. > :12:52.furnaces because he believes they are high cost. And replace them with
:12:53. > :13:01.an electric arc furnace, which he would build from scratch on the
:13:02. > :13:03.site, which uses scrap steel and import slab steel from elsewhere in
:13:04. > :13:10.the world, potentially Brazil for example. They are the key elements
:13:11. > :13:15.of his proposal. He also talks about keeping one blast furnace open
:13:16. > :13:19.through the transitional period, and possibly even for longer. There are
:13:20. > :13:26.some issues, the plan is hardly complete. The analysis has been done
:13:27. > :13:30.on the back of the envelope because we haven't had access. This started
:13:31. > :13:34.a week ago, we haven't had access to the data. So what you have done is a
:13:35. > :13:39.back of the envelope calculation? Yes. The fact that he does not seem
:13:40. > :13:43.across the details now may come back to hurt him, he has two conveys the
:13:44. > :13:47.Treasury to help him and there is another reason why it Whitehall
:13:48. > :13:53.might not want to give him assistance, this is the week that
:13:54. > :13:56.the Panama Papers came out and offshore businessmen are not the
:13:57. > :14:01.flavour of the month. That is a category that Sanjeev Gupta falls
:14:02. > :14:06.into. I'm not referring to the fact that his registered address is at
:14:07. > :14:11.the Palm in Dubai. He also has a holding company on the Isle of Man,
:14:12. > :14:21.liberty is UK is registered here in the rooms above Tasty Bite on the
:14:22. > :14:25.north of the island. That is not his main holding company, that is in
:14:26. > :14:29.Singapore, and that is where Liberty Steel's ownership leads. Sanjeev
:14:30. > :14:33.Gupta will have to answer questions about what is onshore and what is
:14:34. > :14:38.offshore pretty quickly. There are more simple questions. 60% of the
:14:39. > :14:44.workforce in Port Talbot is employed in the heavy end, managing the blast
:14:45. > :14:49.furnaces and parts of the process that are closest to that. And of
:14:50. > :14:54.course, a model that possibly looks at closing down the blast furnaces
:14:55. > :15:00.causes concern because of the impact on jobs. There are not many other
:15:01. > :15:04.takers for the Port Talbot works although a management buyout is
:15:05. > :15:06.quietly being worked on. Right now, saving our steel is far from
:15:07. > :15:08.straightforward. While we are on the subject
:15:09. > :15:10.of business, here is remarkable story about the trade
:15:11. > :15:16.in weapons, trade online. And I'm talking real weapons
:15:17. > :15:18.here like Kalashnikovs or even surface-to-air missiles and above.
:15:19. > :15:22.Traded via Facebook, of all places. Not here, you'll be relieved
:15:23. > :15:25.to hear, we are talking about a market in Libya, a country
:15:26. > :15:41.already awash with weapons. Colonel Gaddafi was an obsessive
:15:42. > :15:47.buyer of weapons. During his 40 years in power he spent an estimated
:15:48. > :15:49.$30 billion on arms, like a compulsive shopaholic, he bought up
:15:50. > :15:58.anything he could get his hands on from the humble Kalashnikov to tanks
:15:59. > :16:03.and mortars, missiles and minds. When rebel forces toppled his regime
:16:04. > :16:07.five years ago, Qaddafi's tightly controlled stockpiles were thrown
:16:08. > :16:13.open. Today these weapons are largely concentrated in the hands of
:16:14. > :16:16.rival militia groups but in this lawless and divided country, it's
:16:17. > :16:20.getting easier for anyone to get their hands on a gun or even
:16:21. > :16:25.something bigger. Newsnight has been given access to data that shows how
:16:26. > :16:29.arms are being traded openly on the Internet. Researchers have been
:16:30. > :16:35.tracking weapons sales on a number of different online platforms. A
:16:36. > :16:38.rocket propelled grenade launcher, offered for sale on Facebook.
:16:39. > :16:43.Another seller comment on the picture that he has more missiles
:16:44. > :16:48.for sale. Over a period of the year, the researchers monitored more than
:16:49. > :16:55.1300 weapons sales, on just a handful of pages, most of them
:16:56. > :17:00.closed the secret Facebook groups. The research was commissioned by the
:17:01. > :17:05.small arms survey, a group that tracks weapons proliferation around
:17:06. > :17:10.the world. We spoke to one of the investigators in Libya who wanted to
:17:11. > :17:15.remain anonymous for his own safety. Basically the dealer comes with the
:17:16. > :17:23.gun in the trunk of his car, and other phone calls, they meet at a
:17:24. > :17:28.certain place, usually a public place, and they do the transaction
:17:29. > :17:34.not so public, it's quite discreet, 100% cash. Much of the trade is in
:17:35. > :17:39.small arms, pistols, rifles, the kind of thing an individual might
:17:40. > :17:45.want to buy for personal protection, especially in a country as lawless
:17:46. > :17:48.as Libya. But not all of it. More worryingly, the researchers also
:17:49. > :17:54.found evidence of bigger weapons being bought and sold online. They
:17:55. > :17:58.trekked nearly 100 separate trades in what are known as light weapons,
:17:59. > :18:07.that is light as opposed to heavy artillery, but make the mistake,
:18:08. > :18:11.this is serious stuff. Traditionally they were small arms, rifles,
:18:12. > :18:17.machine guns, there were significant systems that could have impact,
:18:18. > :18:25.terrorist use, including anti-tank weapons. One seller offered this
:18:26. > :18:34.anti-aircraft gun for 85,000 Libyan dinar, about ?45,000, truck
:18:35. > :18:37.included. These are the kinds of weapons the rebels used to overthrow
:18:38. > :18:48.Colonel Gaddafi, the kinds of weapons you would buy if you want to
:18:49. > :18:52.wage an insurgent campaign. These man portable air defence systems up
:18:53. > :18:55.perhaps the most worrying, hand-held surface-to-air missiles that can
:18:56. > :19:00.take a passenger plane out of the sky. The researchers found two
:19:01. > :19:07.systems for sale, this reusable shoulder head launcher, on offer for
:19:08. > :19:19.between 4000 and 8000 Libyan dinar, or about 2000 to ?4000. We found a
:19:20. > :19:22.number of shoulder mounted anti air missiles, they are basically a
:19:23. > :19:27.threat to civilian aviation. Researchers believe that people
:19:28. > :19:32.wanting to buy these weapons are a number of the militia but they are
:19:33. > :19:37.also more worrying implications. Can see that the weapons are leaking out
:19:38. > :19:41.and given the flow we already see of human trafficking, and other illicit
:19:42. > :19:43.flows across the water into Europe, it's not beyond the realm of
:19:44. > :19:50.possibility we could see some of these weapons going across the water
:19:51. > :19:54.into Europe. Most of the weapons tracked by the researchers came from
:19:55. > :19:59.Colonel Gaddafi's Arsenal although some had been shipped to Libya
:20:00. > :20:04.before or after the revolution. In this country it is difficult to
:20:05. > :20:07.define this trade in legal terms, it is certainly unregistered and it's
:20:08. > :20:27.definitely against Facebook policy. In a statement, they told us:
:20:28. > :20:33.at the moment this appears to be largely internal trade, that is to
:20:34. > :20:39.say the weapons are being bought and sold by Libyans, most likely for use
:20:40. > :20:43.in Libya. But the ease-of-use and anonymity the Internet offers
:20:44. > :20:47.suggests threat of these weapons is spreading beyond Libya's borders.
:20:48. > :20:50.While we talk about what the leaked Panama Papers tell
:20:51. > :20:53.us about tax avoidance and evasion, there is another angle.
:20:54. > :21:01.If I'm evil or if I'm a tax evader or even just imagine I'm
:21:02. > :21:03.the Prime Minister of Iceland, I tend to prefer my private
:21:04. > :21:21.And our society has been complicit in allowing the rich and
:21:22. > :21:24.powerful to have their secrets because we allow
:21:25. > :21:27.everybody to keep their finances to themselves.
:21:28. > :21:30.Well all of a sudden the culture of privacy or
:21:31. > :21:32.secrecy, call it what you will, that culture is under threat.
:21:33. > :21:35.Really because of the data stick, the
:21:36. > :21:39.technology of data storage and data search, has made it easier than ever
:21:40. > :21:41.before to dump terabytes of secrets into the public domain.
:21:42. > :21:44.And now we have seen it done, you wouldn't want
:21:45. > :21:46.your life to depend on data that had been leaked.
:21:47. > :21:51.So do we welcome this new world of transparency?
:21:52. > :21:53.The Prime Minister certainly says he does.
:21:54. > :21:57.You're going to have so much information about what we do,
:21:58. > :22:00.how much of your money was spent doing it and what the
:22:01. > :22:05.This cloak of secrecy has fuelled all manners of
:22:06. > :22:06.questionable practice and downright legality.
:22:07. > :22:09.And work with us to spread this abridged transparency around
:22:10. > :22:16.Is it fair to say the Panama whistle-blower has done more
:22:17. > :22:19.to prise open the murky world of offshore companies than the Prime
:22:20. > :22:30.But let's ask why would we want for transparency, why not and how could
:22:31. > :22:40.we achieve it? There is enforcing the tax rules,
:22:41. > :22:43.the difference between legal appointment and illegal evasion is
:22:44. > :22:50.you should have no reason to hide the legal ploys. But we also like
:22:51. > :22:54.transparency in order to know where people's money comes from. We can
:22:55. > :23:01.all ask the question had that person get to be so rich. President Putin's
:23:02. > :23:09.cellist friend, we can see just how good a cellist he must been to gain
:23:10. > :23:14.his wealth. So is there and I commit against transparency? He is one
:23:15. > :23:20.offered by the Chief Executive of HSBC to MPs went emerged he was
:23:21. > :23:27.hiding his fortune offshore. My question was why you felt the need
:23:28. > :23:35.is a Hong Kong domiciled person to create a Panamanian company. There
:23:36. > :23:40.was no tax purpose, it was... It was purely to give me privacy within my
:23:41. > :23:44.own company. Is that a good enough reason? I suppose you might say that
:23:45. > :23:49.as well as the bankers, kidnappers and crooks would be interested in
:23:50. > :23:54.his private wealth data. But let me ask, do you think everyone who wins
:23:55. > :23:58.the lottery should have to take the publicity box? Using your own salary
:23:59. > :24:02.should be published so I can look it up, like I can look up your house on
:24:03. > :24:07.the land Registry but the site to find out who owns it and at what
:24:08. > :24:11.price they bought it? If all that sounds bonkers, it is exactly what
:24:12. > :24:17.those crazy Scandinavians do already. Sweden, Norway and Finland,
:24:18. > :24:21.everyone's income and tax details are published online. But that
:24:22. > :24:27.Scandinavian example does give us a clue into how we get more openness
:24:28. > :24:30.if we wanted. We would need a wholesale change of culture we from
:24:31. > :24:36.the principle that my business belongs to me, and that's a pretty
:24:37. > :24:42.big shift. Think of all the concern around procedure and encryption and
:24:43. > :24:47.how we want the government to stop finding out staff to stop that is
:24:48. > :24:48.what we want to do as well as distributing data sticks to
:24:49. > :24:52.whistle-blowers. Earlier I spoke to Tom Macan,
:24:53. > :24:54.the former governor of the British Virgin Islands,
:24:55. > :24:57.who thinks we need more I began by asking him
:24:58. > :25:00.what legislation he would seek The legislation has to be passed
:25:01. > :25:04.by the Virgin Islands House of Assembly and I think it needs
:25:05. > :25:07.to involve a public register, so that anyone can gain access
:25:08. > :25:18.and find out just who owns what. Because that is rather
:25:19. > :25:19.difficult at the moment. In your experience, did the British
:25:20. > :25:22.government push very hard The British Virgin Islands,
:25:23. > :25:31.the clue is in the name, isn't it? Did the British government tell
:25:32. > :25:34.them, look, we want a bit There was pressure throughout my
:25:35. > :25:39.time towards the running of an efficient and legitimate
:25:40. > :25:46.financial services sector. But I can't say that it enjoyed
:25:47. > :25:53.ministers' sustained attention And indeed the system, as it runs,
:25:54. > :26:01.is indeed reasonably well monitored. The weakness comes at the end stage,
:26:02. > :26:10.knowing exactly who owns what. The fact that this information
:26:11. > :26:16.is only available to the agent, probably the legal firm,
:26:17. > :26:21.in the Virgin Islands. Could the British government,
:26:22. > :26:25.and I haven't really managed to hear a clear answer on this,
:26:26. > :26:28.could the British government told the richest Virgin Islands,
:26:29. > :26:30.you are going to do this, because we tell you you have
:26:31. > :26:33.to do it? It would be possible for the British
:26:34. > :26:40.government to obtain an order in Council, which is the basis
:26:41. > :26:46.on which the BVI constitution exists and the order in Council
:26:47. > :26:51.could give an instruction. This would be the nuclear option, it
:26:52. > :26:54.has only been done twice recently. That was to abolish
:26:55. > :27:00.capital punishment, and to abolish discrimination,
:27:01. > :27:04.legislation forbidding But I can't say that it enjoyed
:27:05. > :27:24.ministers' sustained attention There was an extent to which this
:27:25. > :27:26.was rather meaningless because there had been no capital
:27:27. > :27:29.punishment for half a century, and the laws making homosexuality
:27:30. > :27:31.is a criminal offence had So this would be a very major
:27:32. > :27:36.departure from current practice. Let's discuss this issue
:27:37. > :27:38.of transparency versus secrecy with the Guardian's Polly Toynbee,
:27:39. > :27:40.and the tax lawyer James Quarmby who leads the private wealth team
:27:41. > :27:54.at Stephenson Harwood LLP, James, first of all, things have
:27:55. > :27:59.changed. Even today as we speak, the law here has changed about who owns
:28:00. > :28:04.companies. How significant is the change? Extremely, because we are
:28:05. > :28:10.the first country to introduce a fully public register of companies.
:28:11. > :28:14.That's not just who owns the companies but the people behind
:28:15. > :28:19.those companies. And the one behind the one behind that? It will trace
:28:20. > :28:26.all the way through, they have come up with a concept called persons of
:28:27. > :28:29.significant control. Because it gets ridiculous after a while, if
:28:30. > :28:33.somebody has a 2% interest in the company, there is no point reporting
:28:34. > :28:38.that. Say you have persons of significant control, whoever they
:28:39. > :28:41.are, wherever they are, whatever they are hiding behind, they are
:28:42. > :28:49.going to be reported. And that works for companies. The FT are reporting
:28:50. > :28:57.that David Cameron, in 2013, obstructed a similar idea as regards
:28:58. > :29:00.the trusts. And I think the Cameron defence is that they wanted to make
:29:01. > :29:08.sure it worked on companies they thought trusts different.
:29:09. > :29:16.This comes from the money-laundering directive in the EU. What the EU was
:29:17. > :29:21.saying is, let's extend this to trusts. Most of the EU don't have
:29:22. > :29:26.trusts, so it is England that invented them. They are saying that
:29:27. > :29:30.there are hundreds of thousands of trusts and most of them are so
:29:31. > :29:37.mundane that requiring the trustees to report them becomes a complete
:29:38. > :29:43.intrusion into your life. Before we go on to the general principle, the
:29:44. > :29:47.British government's commitment to openness, Cameron has talked about
:29:48. > :29:52.it all the time, do you buy it? He has talked a wonderful talk, he has
:29:53. > :29:57.been lyrical about the corruption and how he's going to have sunlight
:29:58. > :30:02.everywhere. We'll wait and see. What is coming in today is more minor
:30:03. > :30:05.than it looks because there is nobody to check it, companies put in
:30:06. > :30:10.their own reports, companies house do nothing with it. Banks who know
:30:11. > :30:17.who the owners are are not required to tell companies house who are the
:30:18. > :30:23.beneficial owners. I think there is a lot of wriggle room. What's more,
:30:24. > :30:26.Cameron at this moment in Europe is blocking the blacklisting a lot of
:30:27. > :30:35.these treasure Island is that we administer, these tax havens --
:30:36. > :30:42.Islands. He is telling his MEPs to block these things. Let's talk about
:30:43. > :30:47.the principle, James, give us a legitimate reason why people should
:30:48. > :30:50.have financial secrets, why they should be disguising their ownership
:30:51. > :30:55.of assets at all? I want to challenge your use of the word
:30:56. > :30:59.secrets and talk about privacy. There is a point at which
:31:00. > :31:04.transparency becomes intrusive and a bad thing. You want some good
:31:05. > :31:10.reasons? Let's look at all of the publicity we've had about online
:31:11. > :31:17.identity theft. We're all told, be careful how much information you
:31:18. > :31:21.give away, right? But that's not what is causing the super-rich to
:31:22. > :31:25.have these companies in the Channel Islands? It is more complicated,
:31:26. > :31:30.people are advocating that details of your wealth, if you want to take
:31:31. > :31:34.the Scandinavian model, in Sweden they publish your tax returns, so
:31:35. > :31:39.they know how much you learn, how much you give to charity. That's
:31:40. > :31:44.going to provide criminals, conmen, opportunists of the worst possible
:31:45. > :31:52.kind the leveraged to have a go at you. Polly, you are laughing? I'm
:31:53. > :31:57.sorry! Criminals, they are the people sorting their money away,
:31:58. > :32:02.there is no good reason why anybody should have offshore accounts. It is
:32:03. > :32:07.easy to set up a company here, it is much more expensive and complicated
:32:08. > :32:10.to do it there. You are hiding things, almost by definition, apart
:32:11. > :32:17.from a fewer cases. You believe that all of it should be available for us
:32:18. > :32:20.all to see? As you say, it would be a monstrous culture shock and people
:32:21. > :32:25.would feel that they have had their clothes ripped off them, but once we
:32:26. > :32:32.have got used to the idea and took up the Scandinavian idea, I think
:32:33. > :32:35.people would realise, knowing what the person next to you earn is, are
:32:36. > :32:43.you owning the same, especially women who often paid less... We
:32:44. > :32:50.talked about asking what somebody's salary is. The whole point about it,
:32:51. > :32:56.I have published it before, so has George Mumby in the Guardian, the
:32:57. > :33:04.point about it is, what is my salary, I will come if you will! --
:33:05. > :33:08.Monbiot. Let's be open. The point is, like paying your taxes, you do
:33:09. > :33:11.it because everybody else does and if somebody doesn't, they stop
:33:12. > :33:16.paying their taxes, everybody else starts to say, I know these
:33:17. > :33:21.billionaires who have their money salted away in tax havens, why
:33:22. > :33:25.should I pay? Why are we focusing on billionaires? Ordinary people would
:33:26. > :33:30.be impacted. Because they have the tax havens. Hold on, we're obsessing
:33:31. > :33:34.over the rich and famous and notorious, I want to talk about the
:33:35. > :33:36.60 million people who would be affected by the intrusion of having
:33:37. > :33:43.their financial affairs posted on the Internet. Let me ask you, would
:33:44. > :33:47.you nail your bank account on your front door for the public to see? If
:33:48. > :33:54.everybody else will, absolutely. You are happy to do it, but do you want
:33:55. > :33:58.to force that on other people, who wants to keep their affairs secret
:33:59. > :34:05.and that isn't fair. What is happening now, most people pay their
:34:06. > :34:10.tax and they feel that there are fears that smack their affairs are
:34:11. > :34:15.not very secret but it is the mega rich offend people, and increasing
:34:16. > :34:20.the late -- increasingly they are getting away with it. The Panama
:34:21. > :34:23.Papers frightens people, people with a reputation to lose know that it
:34:24. > :34:26.can be hacked and they had better not do it any more.
:34:27. > :34:28.It's been distressing to read about the murder of Angela Wrightson
:34:29. > :34:32.in recent days, mocked, tortured and killed at her own home
:34:33. > :34:37.in 2014, by two girls, one aged 13, one 14.
:34:38. > :34:44.The two are both 15 now, both have had lives appropriately
:34:45. > :34:48.described as chaotic, both spending time in care, and it seems
:34:49. > :34:50.the pair of them together, were far more unpleasant
:34:51. > :34:54.They will be sentenced tomorrow, but what is the best way
:34:55. > :34:57.You obviously can't call them victims in this case,
:34:58. > :34:59.but can you treat them like ordinary murderers?
:35:00. > :35:02.Let's discuss this with Laurence Lee, the solicitor
:35:03. > :35:04.who represented John Venebles during the James Bulger case
:35:05. > :35:07.in 1993, and Amanda Holt, a criminologist at the University
:35:08. > :35:20.If I can start with you, Lawrence, first of all, is our system is
:35:21. > :35:26.well-designed to deal with these kinds of cases, do you think? Let me
:35:27. > :35:30.say from the outset, good evening, let me say from the outset that most
:35:31. > :35:36.young people in society are well bought up and we are dealing with a
:35:37. > :35:40.very small minority. This is a debate that has raged for years
:35:41. > :35:48.about whether they are victims of society. There was a case of the
:35:49. > :35:55.police officer who was killed, the guy who did it, Clayton Williams,
:35:56. > :35:58.was found guilty of manslaughter and his solicitor said he was a victim
:35:59. > :36:05.of society, which hasn't gone down very well. But as far as these young
:36:06. > :36:10.girls are concerned, they are in the minority but I wish I knew the
:36:11. > :36:15.answer to the problem. Let me put it to Amanda. How do you think or do
:36:16. > :36:19.you think a 13-year-old should be treated the same as an 18-year-old
:36:20. > :36:25.for committing the same crime? I don't think they should, we should
:36:26. > :36:31.take into account the kind of vulnerabilities that children have.
:36:32. > :36:34.They don't have the cognitive immaturity as an adult, which is why
:36:35. > :36:41.we don't let anybody vote who is under 18 or buy cigarettes and
:36:42. > :36:46.alcohol, or consent to sex. The age of criminal responsibility is
:36:47. > :36:50.incredibly low in England and Wales, anomalous compared to the other
:36:51. > :36:57.rights that we get. Answer that point, would you treat a 13-year-old
:36:58. > :37:02.the same as an 18-year-old,? You can't treat them in the same way. I
:37:03. > :37:04.have banged on about the age of criminal responsibility for years.
:37:05. > :37:11.Maybe my views are slightly different from others'. The age of
:37:12. > :37:17.common responsibility is in my view correct for grave crimes there may
:37:18. > :37:23.be a two tier system. I think New Zealand has a two tier system for
:37:24. > :37:28.the grave crimes, ten, but for minor crimes, maybe 13, 14. The courts
:37:29. > :37:36.shouldn't be cluttered but it would be wrong to increase the age of
:37:37. > :37:40.criminal responsibility. The Bulger killers could never have been
:37:41. > :37:44.prosecuted. What kind of sentence, how do you decide to sentence
:37:45. > :37:49.someone who is 13, and does it make a difference that they have had a
:37:50. > :37:52.difficult background? You have to take their background into account,
:37:53. > :37:58.and different disadvantages. That isn't suggesting that we should let
:37:59. > :38:02.them off the hook. The other thing I'm concerned about, these debates
:38:03. > :38:05.emerge when we have a case of such extreme horror, even young people
:38:06. > :38:11.who are engaged in criminal activity, all of them, 99% of them
:38:12. > :38:14.would be appalled at the horrendous crime but it is always these crimes
:38:15. > :38:19.that are at the forefront of people's minds when we have these
:38:20. > :38:26.debates and I think that is worrying because we have this idea of a young
:38:27. > :38:30.people committing crime rather than the other crimes that people commit
:38:31. > :38:35.and often grow out of. In a sentence, what kind of discount,
:38:36. > :38:42.what kind of sentence are you talking about for such a crime? You
:38:43. > :38:46.have to take each case and look at the context, I can't comment on this
:38:47. > :38:51.particular case. I don't think I can gladly say, this is for this and
:38:52. > :38:56.this for that. With adults as well, we have to look at the
:38:57. > :39:00.circumstances. Redemption, do you believe in redemption, for evil
:39:01. > :39:05.children? Yes, because if you look at the Bulger killers, at the time
:39:06. > :39:12.it appeared that Thompson, who was the other lad, would reoffend more
:39:13. > :39:20.likely than Venables, but Venables did. But it seems that Thompson has
:39:21. > :39:24.redeemed himself. It's impossible to say at ten how you will turn out.
:39:25. > :39:28.Those two boys pressed the self-destruct button. It appears
:39:29. > :39:30.that Thompson has come out better, as it were. Thank you for joining
:39:31. > :39:31.us. We leave you with the burning
:39:32. > :39:36.question in the tech world - who is going to be top dog
:39:37. > :39:39.in the emerging world Last week we saw the best known
:39:40. > :39:52.contender, Facebook's Oculus Rift. Now it's the turn of
:39:53. > :39:54.their big rival, the HTC Vive. The Vive's big sell is that you're
:39:55. > :39:57.not confined to the sofa, you can walk around
:39:58. > :39:59.and even touch things. Here it is with the help of some
:40:00. > :40:02.old fashioned green screen, so that we can see what the people
:40:03. > :40:17.with the headset see. Any questions? Can I go first? Go
:40:18. > :40:25.crazy. Go and get it! He actually gets it! It makes you feel you are
:40:26. > :40:38.pulling the strings back. Turn left! No way! My goodness, so cool. O!
:40:39. > :40:44.Look at this thing. Ooh!