she doesn't remember anything. where are we going to end up? i'm not going to follow you in there, sir. chuckles good evening. more revelations this evening from the cache of 13.4 million files called the paradise papers, including the news that britain's top racing driver, lewis hamilton, avoided vat of £35 million on a private jet registered in the isle of man. in order to claim the vat relief, the jet should have been used exclusively for business, but hamilton posted a picture on twitter of himself by the steps of the plane saying he was off on a two—day holiday. his lawyers told panorama that the structure was lawful. following last night's revelation that the queen's private estate invested 10 million in offshore funds, jeremy corbyn has called for the monarch's tax affairs to be investigated, and for her to apologise — even though there's no suggestion she avoided tax or knew anything about the duchy‘s of lancaster's investments.

also amongst the latest trawl of the files, the news that apple managed to take a massive bite out of their tax bill by basing themselves in jersey when an advantageous irish tax scheme was scrapped. we'll be exploring all this tonight, but first i'm joined by our business editor helen thomas. helen, what is the detail on apple shopping around for a new base? this is about apple's business outside the us, where it books sales and profits and where it holds offshore cash, about $250 billion. up to 2014, it used this thing called the double irish, a gap between irish and us tax rules, which basically meant its irish subsidiaries could be stateless for tax purposes. they didn't belong anywhere. now that kept its tax rate outside the us quite low, very low some might say. this came under scrutiny. so the senate criticised them in 20 #13, the european commission launched an investigation and ireland then changed the rules. now according to the papers what apple then did was basically go shopping, go looking for a new international home.

it sent a questionnaire to seven jurisdictions places like bermuda, cayman, the isle of man, asking what benefits they might offer. eventually they settled on jersey. we asked apple for a comment tonight. they declined. but what has been apple's general response to all this? what they've said is that they're the world's largest taxpayer. they say they've paid $35 billion in corporation tax over the past three years. they say they've followed the law and they've said that the various changes they made in this period, and there were multiple changes, not reduce tax payments in any country. there's notjust apple, big companies like starbucks, google and so forth who are essentially american companies, so why don't they pay all their tax in america? apple, today for example, pays lots of tax in the us. they have a big business there. but the us tax system is slightly unusual. most tax regimes say you pay taxes in the country where you make

the money, the us system wants to tax worldwide earnings. that's why, but you only are taxed on them when you bring them back to the us. that's why lots of big us companies, tech companies, pharma companies keep the money overseas and then structure to keep bills as low as they can be. thanks very much. appleby the law firm at the heart of the leak was set up in bermuda which is still seen as a tax haven. joining me now is bermuda's premier and minister of finance, david burt. good evening to you. price waterhouse cooper, internationally renowned accountants say bermuda imposes no taxes on profits, income, dividends or capital gains, has no limit on accumulation of profit, no requirement to distribute dividends. what do you think attracted lord ashcroft to a place like bermuda? well, i don't know what attracted

lord ashcroft to bermuda. i can say, and i think it's important for your viewers to understand, that bermuda has a robust regulatory regime and due to the new global regulations, every single uk national who has accounts in bermuda, that information is transferred all matically to her majesty's revenue & customs. so there could be many reasons why many people can be in bermuda but it cannot be to avoid taxes, as we report everything to the uk authorities. so maybe he was just there because the weather was good, it's a good place to do business? well, it's an excellent place to do business. bermuda is a global — you're not worried about unsavoury people? bringing their business to bermuda? we have a very robust regulatory regime. we are rated — we have numerous reviews when it comes to anti—money laundering, antiterrorist financing and making sure that we apply the highest standards.

from the perspective of bermuda we do not have anonymous coming to bermuda. we have a 70—year beneficial ownership register w eknow who owns our companies. can you not come here to set up an annan muss company or to hide your money because we report all money in bermuda to international tax authorities. but the point about trying to get information from bermuda, if a company is registered there, how do you get the balance sheet? if i want to go looking, if i want to look for a british company, i go to companies house or go online and get it in 30 seconds. that doesn't happen there, it's not transparent or speedily understood. well, what i would say is that any company, which is a british company, and/or any person who is a british national who has any type of account in bermuda, that information is automatically shared with the uk tax authorities. her majesty's revenue an customs gets that information automatically. that information is without question transferred. the issue here is a question

of tax avoidance. you cannot avoid taxes if we are reporting all of your financial account information to her majesty's revenue & customs, which is what we do here in bermuda. we are a leading centre for international business and we are a leading centre in transparency. we are proud of our record. we know from panorama tonight there's a leaked presentation by appleby, it was founded in bermuda. the firm gave staff in bermuda a briefing which said there was systematic non—compliance in bermuda, no risk assessments done. doesn't that worry you? well, it would worry me if that was what happened all the time. but what you will see — surely if that happens any of the time you should be worried. what i would say is i think what you would have seen further inside the same item which you're

speaking about is the enforcement acts which had taken place and making sure we keep our companies up to date. from the perspective of anti—money laundering, with ehave a robust regime. we examine and hold our companies to very high standards. systematic non—compliance in bermuda, not the odd bit of non—compliance, systematic non—compliance in bermuda, no risk assessment. i imagine that by your own lights you would say appleby is one of your biggest and most prestigious firms. this is the briefing, the leaked presentation they gave staff. that is not a flash in the pan one—off. it's systematic. and what i would say is that it's easy to take a single document out of context. but what i can speak to is the entirety of bermuda's system. from our perspective we have a robust regulatory regime, assessed by international assessors.

we are confident that we check the people who come here. with eknow who comes here and we have an internal process to ensure that people coming to bermuda their money is clean. if we're found to be in violation of any type of matters, we will investigate them to the fullest extent of the law. that is why bermuda is different than other places. we can't find out often who the final beneficial owners are of companies in bermuda. presumably because those people don't want to be found out, because clients don't want to be transparent when they use bermuda facilities. her majesty's revenue & customs gets all the information, so her majesty's revenue & customs knows the beneficial ownership of any person and entity in bermuda. in addition, we share that information with 114 treaty partners around the world. so they are able to find out the tax authorities in their home countries get information shared automatically from bermuda of those persons. it is not accurate to say that the uk authorities do not know who the beneficial owners are of bermuda companies. they are aware because we share that information automatically. thank you forjoining us.

just to be clear, lord ashcroft denies any wrongdoing. bermuda seems to be saying this systematic failure talked about by appleby is simply not the case. i think what we have to remember and what i've heard from many tax practitioners i've spoken to today is that these cases span many different jurisdictions, many different types of taxpayer, companies and individuals, many different issues. some of them are worried it's all being lumped into one category of tax avoidance and there are concerns around what's going on. what we've been trying to do today is unpack some of these different issues. is there a chill wind blowing through paradise? the paradise papers have put tax

and all business done in offshore locations back into the spotlight. the term "offshore" covers a wide range, spanning the pretty uncontroversial to the down right illegal. but by one estimate, about 8% of global household wealth is held offshore, or in so—called havens, which can promise individuals or companies a very low tax bill. and it is predominantly the preserve of the very rich, the top 0. i% richest households own about 80% of that offshore wealth. the latest revelations raise questions around tax, secrecy and ethics. first stop — tax.

say offshore, you think tax. but legal tax avoidance or tax planning comes in many forms. did lewis hamilton use a conaluted leasing structure to avoid paying vat on a private jet? i've been trying to send you these letters... or how was a bermuda—based trust, set up by lord ashcroft, actually managed ? then there's apple. we already knew some of the biggest us companies structure their international businesses to pay as little tax as possible. in this case, when one tax minimising avenue shut down, it seems apple successfully went looking for another. for some, that's part of the problem. we haven't made more progress because governments are driven by self—interest rather than collective interest. we have to recognise that governments have domestic political concerns. we have to look to governments to provide solutions that work at a domestic level, but also to provide leadership in the international community and in 2014,

2015, on occasions, 0sborne and cameron were doing that. since then, i'm afraid, we've been back sliding. to avoid scrutiny, you need secrecy. wilbur ross, president trump's commerce secretary, said today there was nothing improper about his business connections to russian figures, revealed in the papers. commodities giant glencore‘s links it a controversial israeli businessman were highlighted in the papers. some argue there are good reasons for going offshore, everything from secrecy to administrative simply i. to others, they're all bad. there are four reasons why people use tax havens. the first is because they deliver tax advantages. the second is because they deliver secrecy. the third is because they can put your assets beyond the reach of your creditors and the fourth

is because they offer a laxer regulatory regime. all of those things undercut the regulatory regime that the parliament in your home country has dictated shall apply and judged by that yard stick they are all of them bad. so is it all a question of ethics? does everything offshore now come with the taint of being northerlily grubby? plenty of uk pensions and savings money goes into funds based in ireland or luxembourg. 0ne argument is that very wealthy public figures should set a higher standard. the queen's private estate invested about £10 million in cayman island and bermuda based private equity funds. some of that money ended up invested in uk retailers, including bright brighthouse, a chain accused of irresponsible lending. it doesn't appear that the queen was motivated by tax or secrecy. 0n the basis of what we know, she didn't seem to reduce her tax bill.

her advisors won't have decided where the money ended up. so it seems to be a question of appropriateness or ethics. should her money have ever, under any circumstances, ended up in something with cayman fund in the title? 0ffshore is a lot better behaved than it was a decade or two ago. there are some rightful questions that can be asked about the extent to which the international tax system should allow certain behaviours to be undertaken. with this huge data dump and the way it has been presented, it can be unclear as to what is just the way the international financial system works. and the way it probably should work, versus other things that are a bit

more aggressive and, in some cases, evasive. journalists have spent months unravelling the paradise papers, for politicians and taxpayers, unpicking the implications could take far longer. i am joined now by labour mp peter dowd who is shadow chief secretary to the treasury, tax lawyer fionnuala lynch and anthony travers, the chairman of cayman stock exchange. good evening. peter, absolutely nothing illegal about tax havens, there is no question people go into them to do wrong. it's a question that has been raised in the piece there about ethics and morality. at the end of the day, if an avoidance scam, call it what you will, dodge, is going on, the government is perfectly entitled, if it wants, to close it. let's be quite clear, 0k, there is secrecy, 0k, it is an advantageous tax position,

but actually lots of other people do this with pension funds, put money into tax havens. look, the bottom line with this one is that public services are under enormous strain. the government is entitled to say if it believes that a tax avoidance scheme is not appropriate, it is perfectly entitled to close it down. that is what will happen. but with this we are seeing tax avoidance on an industrial scale. and tax avoidance of billions of pounds a year affecting public services. anthony, we are seeing tax avoidance on a grand scale, notjust in the cayman islands but other british territories, it's true, it's tax avoidance, isn't it? no. you might see it as advantageous tax planning, but it is avoidance. no, the avoidance you are talking about that runs into the billions of dollars is undertaken by apple, google, and starbucks. that takes advantage of double tax treaty networks within europe which don't work.

there are lots of other companies that are not apple, google, and so forth, that take advantage of the tax regime in cayman, bermuda, and so forth, these are not google, these are not apple. this is a complete heresy. companies that invest in the cayman islands do this to ensure jurisdictions where there are markets and investments. they pay 100% of the tax due in those jurisdictions. when tax is distributed to their investors by virtue of the common reporting standards, that you heard referred to, the recipient of dividends, from those cayman companies pay tax in accordance with the jurisdictions of that domicile. there is no tax edge to investing in the cayman islands. why would you do it, then? the fact is, lots of people do it because they don't have to pay tax and there is a great deal

of secrecy to be had. you don't have secrecy whatsoever. you haven't listened. ..to what the premier of bermuda has said. there is secrecy insofar asjournalists may be concerned, but there is no secrecy in terms of tax authorities or law enforcement. they can ascertain the precise position with regards any company in any overseas territory, cayman islands, bermuda, included. you are one of the experts. where does your position lie on the ethics of this, and whether or not people can find out what has been put where, in what company, in any of these territories? the british tax authorities might be able to get their hands on it, but other people can't. there is wide ranging and effective reporting obligations. we have the obligation of the common reporting standard which now means that if you have an account, say, in the cayman islands, then the cayman islands authorities automatically have to give that information. if it is a uk holder of that account, to the uk authorities.

and likewise, if you have, say, a uk individual that has another account in italy, the italian authorities then exchange that information. so there is now an automatic exchange of information. that's introduced by the 0ecd. you then have fatca, which was introduced to achieve the same thing the us taxpayers. so us individuals who have accounts... so there wasn't a problem? there is a lot more exchange of information. so you are calling for an inquiry, but actually the reporting is better than it used to be? the transparency that we've asked forfrom the government, which they refused, what does that say? what's wrong with transparency, what's wrong with accountability, what's wrong with having systematic plans? and we, the british taxpayer, knowing about that,

if this is all hunky—dory, there is no problems, why do we have these paradise papers, come on, the implications... nobody has been prosecuted as a result of the panama papers. whether they have been robust enough is a different kettle of fish. what have we had from the panama papers in terms of actual convictions in the uk for anything at all involving tax evasion or avoidance? nothing. nothing statistically relevant. the panama papers are fake news. this new leak from bermuda is fake news. save to the extent it is a criminal endeavour to hack people's computers and these journalists should be imprisoned. tell me what you think morally. let me say that we advise very major corporations. if you are saying that tax should be paid on the basis of the morals, as they are understood in the houses

of parliament at the moment, i would have great difficulty in ascertaining what the proper test should be. what tax is paid on is the law. we can remind ms hodge that her government were in power from 1997 to 2010. if they really did not like the international tax treaties which existed in europe, which enabled tax avoidance in europe by the major us corporates, they should have changed those treaties whilst they had the majority in the houses of parliament. briefly, let's look at one simple thing, developing countries worried about capital flight, money finding its way into tax havens. don't you even have a pang about that? i don't know what the expression tax haven means. nor do you. tax shelter. you are talking about offshore financial centres. they have transparency to the highest standards. infinitely higher than what exists in the us. speaks volumes about the complacency. thank you very much.

0nto other stories now. after a weekend of more allegations of sexual misconduct, conservative, labour and snp — the latter led to the resignation of scotland's children's minister — the tally of investigations reads like this: ten mps are facing questions, one cabinet minister has resigned and another is the subject of a cabinet office inquiry. theresa may met other westminster leaders today to discuss the scandal and afterwards announced a new grievance procedure for parliamentary staff. it was also a very eventful day for the government. i'm joined by chris cook. a lot has been going on. we were surprised to hear that that meeting about the sexual harassment process wasn't going to be the most important thing. the most important thing is about an iranian briton — nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe — who is currently in prison in iran.

she was arrested last year at tehran airport. she is being held on a charge of trying to throw over the government, of sedition. she denies the allegations. she says she was there to visit family. last week boris johnson told the foreign affairs select committee that, he said the following words, when i look at what nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe was doing, she was simply teaching people journalism, as i understand it. thing is, that isn't what she said in court in iran, and the iranian high court said over the weekend that mrjohnson shed new light on what she had been doing. it shows she was there for something other than a holiday. they have urged the foreign office to correct this mistake. what has borisjohnson said? we have this fudgy statement saying the uk is doing all it can to secure her release. and he will be calling the iranian foreign minister to make it clear.

that isn't what he meant. has he apologised to the family? not as far as we know. this isn'tjust about borisjohnson. priti patel has been doing a bit of freelancing. last week we learned she had taken time out of her holiday in israel to meet a centrist politician. this was odd because she hadn't told the foreign office she was doing it. bluntly, there are rules in place saying ministers should tell the foreign office what they are doing so we don't have more than one foreign policy at a time. she told the guardian last week, boris knew about the visit, the point is the foreign office knew about this, boris knew about the trip. she has had to put out a statement today saying, this quote may have given the impression that the secretary of state had informed the foreign secretary about the visit in advance. the secretary of state would like to clarify that this was not the case. there is a second quote, she was asked about whether she only met that minister. she said, the stuff that is all there, that is it, as far as i am concerned. meaning she didn't

meet anybody else. but there has to be another statement. this may imply that this was the only meeting taking place. we know that isn't true, including visiting benjamin netanyahu. wait, she was meeting a dozen ministers. she didn't have any civil servant with her. she didn't tell the prime minister she was going. she didn't tell the foreign secretary. and she still has a job. that's right. why? you can take this and everything else going on in westminster as a sign of theresa may's fundamental weakness. this isn't a strong pm standing by her ministers. she's paralysed on all fronts and another reshuffle is not what she needs. thanks very much. it is hard to imagine the extent of the convulsion at the weekend in saudi arabia. the kingdom's 32—year—old crown prince mohammad bin salman who became the heir apparent this year, has carried out a sweeping royal purge, ostensibly

an anti corruption drive, including billionaire prince al—waleed bin talal, and ten other princes, one the chief of the national guard. it's also being described as a move to consolidate his power by eliminating rivals opposed to his social and economic reforms plans and eventual succession as king. the arrests and ministerial changes amount to a fundamental transformation of the state as it has existed since the 1960s. he could now repudiate wahabbism, the fundamentalist interpretation of islam which would have an impact internationally. mike thompson reports. few outside saudi arabia had heard of prince mohammed bin salman before his father became king in january 2015. since then, the 32—year—old has become the most powerful man in the world's biggest oil—exporting nation. after being named first in line to the throne six months ago by his father, king salman. the prince's rise has been rapid, and his policies and methods controversial. never more so than on saturday night when under his orders 11 princes, former ministers, and dozens of former ministers, were arrested. among those previously powerful

and untouchable figures was billionaire al—waleed bin talal, co—owner of london's savoy hotel, and one of the wealthiest men in the world. those arrested are now thought to be being held in the luxury ritz carlton hotel in riyadh. saturday's crackdown follows the arrests in september by balaclavad security officials of a range of clerics, academics, and businessmen. many view the latest arrests as little more than a brazen attempt to weed out dissent and political rivals of the ambitious heir to the throne. this amid speculation that king salman may soon abdicate. early on saturday evening, the crown prince, whose first move on becoming defence minister was to launch its country's military campaign in yemen, removed the minister of the national guard, prince miteb, who had been regarded as a potential rival to the throne.

but his supporters argue that such measures are needed to push through austerity reforms and help diversify the economy of this oil dependent nation. the crown prince recently took charge of the country's newly created anti—corru ption committee, adding to his long list of powerful posts. it's not yet clear just how far he will go to silence his remaining critics, or whether self interest, rather than national interest, is determining his policies. joining me now in the studio is frank gardener, our security correspondent. first of all, for the crown prince to act so quickly over the weekend and decisively, he must have had strong backers. for a start, he's got his father, the king, who is the absolute ruler in saudi arabia. but the king is 81.

he's not in good health. essentially he has devolved a huge amount of power to his favourite son, the man you've seen there. he's got another backer, president trump. not just president trump, but jarrod kushner, who was in riyadh a few days ago. i covered the trump visit there in may. it was extraordinary mood music between the white house and the house of saud. they got on incredibly well. i think president trump views the crown prince almost as a young donald trump. he's not afraid to court controversy, bold moves, doesn't mind how many enemies he gathers. we know that some of them, the most powerful prince he is apparently holed up with the other ten princes at the savoy. what is going to happen to them. nobody is suggesting capital punishment. the saudi leadership has made it clear that nobody is above the law. that their princely background will not necessarily save them

from the law. the charges haven't been made precisely public. we know they're accused of abuse of power, corruption, bribery etc. but saudi law is very opaque. there is no constitution. there's no judicial process. it's left up to judges. essentially this is a political case rather than a judicial one. we know already that the crown prince wants to make various reforms, you know, female driving and so forth. but 70% of the country is under 30. is it a kind of powder keg in a sense that he had to do something? he did. i think probably the way to look at this is let's look at it as a spectrum. if you're optimistic, a fan of the crown prince, as many young saudis r, you would say, he sees the future, hose a visionary, he knows they can't go on in the way they have been. something's got to change. they've got to wean themselves off the way they've been dependent on oil income, find properjobs.

pessimists would say he is melting the glue that holds the country together and that's a risky thing to do. there's no sign of any flowering of democracy. this is a case of actually collecting power unto himself. it is. again, to try and give him the benefit of the doubt, it's in order to push through the reforms he wants. this man has already got massive power. he controls the military, the economy, the royal court, foreign policy. you name it, it's in his hands. what are the implications for the region? providing he can maintain the loyalty of the tribes, the families, the middle classes, the business community and that's a big if right now, but if he can keep that under control, then he could go down in history as the man who saved saudi arabia from an uncertain future. but his detractors are saying that he is going on a bold and risky path that is really, really dangerous for that country. frank, thanks very much. the trump presidency has been very specialfor one man.

alec baldwin's acting career took a handbrake turn when donald trump entered the frame as a presidential candidate, and now for trump's arch impressionist and nemesis, it is the gift which keeps on giving. he got an emmy for his portrayal of the donald and saturday night live, and now he has a new book out with the american novelist kurt anderson, in a further parody, called "you can't spell america without me." in a broadcast exclusive, our north america correspondent nick bryant talks to alec baldwin about playing trump, satire and the present state of the hollywood industry. i don't know if you know this, but you're in an island in the water, the ocean water, big ocean, with fishes and bubbles and turtles that bite. we want to help you but we have to take care of america first. wait, you do know we are a us territory, didn't you? laughter i mean, i do, but not many people know that, no. with the goal was to try to find a very small menu of tricks that

you can stick to, and you wouldn't lose very easily. you get the left eyebrow up, you get the mouth out, as far as you can, and get the hands going. and there are words, too, that, china's a big one. we played with that. we almost made up our own lexicon with ad—trumps. you know, so, gina. it would terrify them but when i got to gina. trump was always someone who was digging for a stronger word in his speech that he would never find. so he would always fall back on the same three words, he would say this new tax plan, is a tax plan, i'm very proud of, and i think the american people are going to find it's really, really a great tax plan, just a great tax plan, you know? there is a laziness to this. chuckles his vocabulary. but, but, all of that aside, i think we're in another place now,

which is that, what's trump going to do now that the wagons appear to be circling? when donald trump won, unexpectedly, was there any part of you, the professional part of you, that thought, great, i get to do donald trump again? no, not at all. the thing i'm doing, that i think people enjoy to some degree, is channelling their frustrations. it's been a year since he won, and people have been very, very confused and frustrated. and if this show we've done has helped them manage those feelings in some way then i think it's worthwhile. is there a downside to the comedy? there are many people who would regard donald trump is an object of fear, and you have made him an object of fun. does that come in its own way, have a normalising effect? people have said that. i said that myself. unprompted by other people. the critical mass of americans bought this nonsense that trump is this crack go—getter executive

you see on some stupid reality show. and this confluence of things came together of which the portrayal by snl, i think, had very little to do with that at all. i don't think anybody in this country uses snl, or any late night comedy, i don't think that trevor noah or samantha bee, orjohn 0liver, or any of the late night host of tv shows have any real influence on the political process, i doubt. let's talk about the book. you can't spell america without me. it's a fake memoir in this age of fake news, but some people will read this and they'll think, this is the sort of stuff i read in the new york times everyday. yes, well, kurt andersen is a great gift. kurt is a great writer. he's your co—author? this is kurt's take on trump attempting to be reflective and introspective. now, trump is one of the least reflective and introspective men that has ever breathed oxygen in human history, and throughout the book you see that he's as petty and as bitter as trump really is all the time in real life,

but in this really clever way... this is an extraordinary moment for america. this is an extraordinary moment for hollywood given what has happened with harvey weinsten. right. i wonder how that impacted the industry, impacted you. i know you have spoken very honestly recently about this. you are going to see a lot of changes in this business. you are going to see a lot of people where... you're not going to see an unsupervised, unmonitored casting session in this business for quite some time to come. i hope that people who, prior to now, who took settlement money, you know, rose mcgowan took settlement money from harvey weinsten, she kept quiet for 20 years. i perfectly understand that, because she was probably led to believe that's what in your interest career—wise. but i hope that we continue along that path. and i hope that people understand that what's going on is not exclusive to our business. that the entertainment business does

not have a greater percentage of people being sexually assaulted in the workplace. it's the same in the military, it's the same on wall street, it's the same in washington, everywhere you go, this is a problem culturally, not confined to the entertainment business, what i think unfortunately people seem to have that impression right now. has it been a moment of personal introspection? i bullied women before, meaning, if i raised my voice to my wife, that's bullying. you know, when a guy tries to get, never forget my daughter said to me once, my daughter ireland, when i was married to her mother, and i said, are you telling me that your mother doesn't yell at you, at all? you know, we were having this, like, pretty intense conversation when she was younger. she said, no, my mother yells at me ten times more than you do, she said. but she said when you do it it's different. and i realised that for men that is a condition you have to live with. there is a fear involved if you get

angry, if you get upset, if you are being forceful, and i have a minimum of that in my life. meaning that the women in my life are not running around in fear that i am going to do something. but what i've realised even more importantly is that i have lived in a male dominated society most of my life. the director's a guy, the president's a guy, the head of the company is a guy. i've been in rooms where a woman's spoke, and i've gone, yeah, that's great, susan, and then i turned to the guy who's in charge, and i was kind of dismissive of, not even so much dismissive of a woman, i just elevated men, because men were always in control in my life. men have always been in control. and men were in charge of everything in my lifetime. and hopefully we're going to see that change, as well. time for the front pages. the guardian, lewis hamilton avoided taxes on 16. 5 millionjet. the racing driver amongst dozens of clients helped by the firm appleby. they rented their own jets from themselves. the sun have the story about mrs brown's ploys it says. top comedy stars funnel £2 million

into a tax dodge scheme. then timely, on the mirror, that the tax dodge parasites, lewis hamilton's 3. 3 million vat back on his jet. apple side steps billions with channel islands tax route and three stars of mrs brown's boys invested £2 million offshore. more on the paradise papers tomorrow. that's all we have time for. evan is here then. until then, good night. well, the weather has changed certainly in the last few hours. it has warmed up a little bit. we had beautiful weather across so many

parts of the country during the course of the day. the clouds have started rolling in and this is bringing the warmer weather overnight. i say warm, warm relatively speaking to what we had. this weather front which will be in place across the uk tomorrow is going to bring some pretty damp, cloudy, unpleasant conditions. but it does mean the morning will be a lot milder. this is what we had around 12 hours ago, more than that, 18 hours ago. by the end of the night this weather front will be in place across the country, and the temperatures across many areas in england and wales will be six to possibly 10 degrees higher compared to what we had. so first thing on tuesday morning, five to seven degrees across the south—east. maybe in the far north of scotland, as well, but for many of us it is closer to around eight or ten. but with this left frosty weather comes some pretty unpleasant weather across western areas of the uk —— left frosty weather. and this

weather front is at least around 8am, you can see it across cornwall, just about merging into devon, western wales, a few dribs and drabs across the midlands and the south and maybe some sunshine here. this whole weather front will be moving eastwards, and when it reaches the bulk of the uk, around say the middle of the afternoon, it will be stuck across the midlands, for example, and yorkshire. it will not feel pleasant. around eight degrees. so we are not going to have a cold morning but the temperatures between the morning in the afternoon are not going to change an awful lot, so not a pleasant picture. and this is the following night, not this night but the following night. tuesday night in the wednesday, that weather front with its cloud and rain moves away. this cold air means that wednesday morning is going to be frosty. we had a frosty morning this morning. tonight it is not going to be frosty, and then into wednesday it is going to be frosty again, so

going up and down hill with those temperatures. a chilly start first thing wednesday morning across many parts of the country, maybe not in the south—east. an increasing rain in the north—western parts of the uk. so to summarise this week we have some frosts on the way but it will move from frosty to mild to frosty, back to mild again. so a little bit of everything to everyone. that's it, good night. this is newsday on bbc news. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: the latest revelations from the paradise papers. technology giant apple has been managing billions of dollars offshore to avoid tax, but what they've been doing is not illegal. the formula one champion, lewis hamilton, avoided vat on a luxuryjet he'd bought by registering it in the isle of man. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: the first leg of president trump's asia trip draws to a close. next stop, south korea. we'll be live in seoul. and the priceless 17th century map of australia,

which was feared lost forever, is found in an attic.