50 or 60 . The problem is, all the other risks involved. Even if you have this one woman why are we changing the policy based on one woman . The problem is this is just about a couple of women who want to. First of all, now women are subject to involuntary assignment, because that is what repealing the combat exception means. The women who are willing and maybe able, when they succumb to their two to ten times greater risk of injury, their replacements are going to come from the pool of the unwilling, and most women in the marine corps and in the overall forces are not interested in the infantry. Right now, we dont have any who have applied of the ones who were in that integration study or who have gone through Marine Infantry Training battalions. We had a lot of trouble finding any women who want to. This is a deterrent for recruitment as well. There is a 2012 study of the marine corps, 54,000 covered, thatfound that, about 4 of women who are staying and would not stay in if involuntary assignment was on the table. Im sorry, that is if the exception was going to be repealed, the numbers are even greater, like 20 for women. If involuntary assignment. A lot of doing this, but if you could ask a question and then the woman asks. Hang on. Good. [indiscernible] [inaudible] you had a question . I was one of the first women to serve on the ship in 1994. The arguments made then was that we were told that we would degrade combat readiness. Im just curious, because we have now had many years of war to study this. Did combat readiness degrade . [indiscernible] everybody that i know from the navy refers to ships as if you like high school, you will love this. That doesnt exactly speak to your combat readiness. I cant really speak to what the navy thinks about combat readiness on ships after women were serving on them. That is a huge problem. Again, it is a huge problem that is not addressed by standards, regardless of physical standards. I would like to thank you for your service during the transition, and i think a lot of Lessons Learned during your era are lessons we dont look backwards to do that type of reflection. I would say, having served on ships, we didnt have any issues with the women in terms of how the mission was achieved. I think that the secretary of the navy would be hardpressed to say otherwise. Could anyone speak to the gentlemans question about the rangers . I think, in some ways, it is not necessarily a parallel argument, is the women who had been working on those teams had different duties than the men on those units. I served in special operations units with the women, and the women were doing different work then the man. There has been this argument that women have been in combat for a long time on convoys. It is not synonymous, because the units were talking about integrating his units where the actual purpose is close combat. I think those are interesting points to show that there was success, but to say that, because they have been doing this, they can automatically do these other jobs, isnt a onetoone, although it shows they can be out of the field, these units can exist as integrated unit. I am a reporter. When i go into interview, i tried last the interviewee, please make me smarter. I hope that despite some rancor, a lot of passion, that everybody feels a little bit smarter. If you want me to, i will ask how many people may change their minds in anyway based on the conversation tonight. Does anybody feel any differently about this issue having sat through two hours of discussion . I see one hand. I saw three hands. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] activist along with a retired general testify about violent extremism and u. S. Born assistance. Live coverage from a Senate Subcommittee hearing live tomorrow on cspan3 at 2 00 p. M. Madam secretary, we probably votes2 of our delegate to the next president of the United States. Announcer british Prime MinisterDavid Cameron responded to criticism after it was found his late fathers name appeared Panama Papers. He says he sold his shares before he became Prime Minister. From the british house of commons, this is about 90 minutes. Order. Statements for the Prime Minister. Prime minister David Cameron i a statemento make on the Panama Papers. Yesterday i published all of the information on my tax returns for the last six years and have given Additional Information about money and heritage and given to me from my family. Salary, living in the home, the renting of our london home, the interest on savings that i have. Have not owed any shares or investment. The primeation of ministers Tax Information in this way is unprecedented but i think it is the right thing to do. I am not suggesting this should m. P. s. O all this begs the question of how far the publication of Tax Information should go. I think there is a strong case for the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, the chancellor and shadow chancellor, because those are people who are or who wish to be responsible for the nations finances. As for the mps we already have robust roles and i believe that continuedel we should to follow. We should think carefully before abandoning taxpayer confidentiality and this house. If this were to come in for mps people would ask for a similar approach for those who ask questions, run large Public Services, or lead local government to or who had the news programs or newspapers. I think this would be a very big step for our country. It certainly should not take place without a long, thoughtful debate and it is not the approach i recommend. Mr. Speaker, let medial specifically with the shares my wife and i held in Investment Fund held by my set up by my late father. It was a commercial Investment Fund for any invest their to purchase in. Theuding income tax on dividends every year. Mr. Speaker, there have been some deeply hurtful and profoundly untrue allegations made against my father he and i want to comment past let me, put the record straight. It was set up overseas because it was going to be trading predominantly and dollar security. Like any other commercial Investment Fund, it made sense the main up in one of centers of dollar training. There are thousands of these Investment Funds and millions of people in britain who own shares and told them through an Investment Funds or unit trust. Are included in the Pension Funds of local government, most of britains largest companies, and even some trade unions. Look shows the bbc, the mayor grew guardian newspapers, allto pick one at random have overseas investments. To give a further example, the trade Union Fund Managers based in Congress House has a portfolio of over 50 million in the trade unitrust with 3 of their net assets based in jersey. This is not to criticize, it is to make a point it is an entirely Standard Practice and not to avoid tax. One of the countrys leading tax lawyers has stated unequivocally that this was a perfectly normal type of collective Investment Fund. Which speaker, this is the man who led the Expert Study Group that developed such general antiabuse rules debated in this house which parliament finally adopted in 2013. He also chaired the tax avoidance by the committee. He has said it would be quite wrong to describe the establishment of such funding to be tax of why didnt. Further, and i quote, that it would be utterly ridiculous to suggest establishing such fines would suggest tax avoidance. That is why getting rid of such bonds listed overseas has not been part of any labor policy review, and a conservative party review or any sensible proposals for addressing tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance. Investors in these finds benefit from those being set up and jurisdiction with low or no taxes. This is a misunderstanding. Unit trusts do not exist to be for to make profit themselves but for holders and they pay tax and their they are u. K. Citizens they pay for u. K. Taxes. It is right to tighten the law and change the culture around investment to further outlawed and avoidance but as we do so we should differentiate between schemes designed to artificially reduce tax and those that are encouraging investment. This is a government and the should be a country that believes in aspiration and Wealth Creation. We should defend it the right of every british citizen to make money lawfully. Aspiration in and Wealth Creation are not dirty words, they are the key engines of growth and prosperity and our always and we must support those who want to earn shares and make investments. Trustave asked if this was legitimate, why did you sell your shares in january 2010 four i sold all the shares in my portfolio that your because i did not want any issues about it of interest. To be ableant anyone to suggest i had other agendas or vested interest. Selling my shares was the simplest way i could do that. There are strict rules for the registration of Share Holdings and i followed them in full. Wouldbour party said they refer me for parliamentary standards and i have already given her the relevant information. If there is more should leaves i should say, i am happy to say it. Criticismll of the for not responding more quickly to these issues last week but as ive said i was angry about the way my fathers memory was being reduced. He was a hardworking man and wonderful dad and i am proud of every thing he did to provide for his family. Speaker, on the issue of inheritance tax, there is an established system is country. Her from being embarrassed by wanting to pass things to children, like keeping a family home in a family, i believe it is a family instinct and should be an card. As for parents passing money to their children while they are still alive, it is something tax rolls only wrecking dies. Many parents want to help their children when they buy the first car, get a deposit for the first song, or face the cost of starting a family. It is entirely natural parent should want to do these things and it is something we should just not defend but also probably support. Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the Panama Papers in the actions this government is taking to deal with tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance, and International Corruption more broadly. Intothis government came office, there were foreigners not paying Capital Gains tax. Private Equity Managers paying a lower rate of tax and people claim their offices in people with homes getting away without paying their stamp duty because houses where envelope with a companies. End to this. N in the last parliament, we made 40 tax changes to close loopholes that raised 2 billion pounds. And this parliament, we will legislate for more measures to raise 16 billion pounds by 2021. No British Government labor or conservative has ever taken such robust action in this area. 23rd team, in and put tax, trade, and transparency on the global agenda and sought an agreement for a global standard over who pays taxes and where. Many said it would never happen but today 129 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the International Standard for exchange of information not written west and over 95 jurisdictions have agreed to implement on tax transparency. Fromll receive information u. K. Taxpayers and all of these jurisdictions and in june, britain will become the first to have a public registry. To everyone who can see who owns. Also consulting on acquiring Foreign Properties and bidding on contracts to provide Beneficial Ownership information. We are happy to offer assistance. As the Panama Papers have made clear, we need to go further. We are taking three additional measures to make it harder to hide proceeds of corruption offshore. To make sure those cannot get away with it and to investigate wrongdoing. To deal with crime dependencies on overseas territory. They have agreed to exchange account information automatically and will begin doing so from september. That never happened before i was Prime Minister and got around the table and said, this must happen. We need to go forward. We have finalized arrangements with all of them except in will and jersey which we believe will follow. The first time, u. K. Police and Law Enforcement will be able in controlswns every Company Incorporated in these territories. Haman islands, British Virgin islands, the lot. A result of the sustained campaign of the g8 and i welcome the governments of these territories to work with us. The house should note this will dependencies well ahead of other jurisdictions and crucially, ahead of many of our Major International partners including some states in the United States of america. Will seek to go further still on exchanging information and publishing information. Putting it into the Public Domain as we are doing here in the u. K. It is we want everyone with a stake in fighting corruption to be able to use this data and help us deter wrongdoing. Take another major step in dealing with those who facilitate corruption. It is difficult to prosecute a company that assists with tax evasion. Going to change that and will legislate for a new criminal offense for those who keep their representatives from facilitating tax evasion. Foronly, we are providing a a cross Agency Task Force to analyze information and take rapid action. Includeforce will investigators from across agencies. That is how we will tackle these issues and build a strong funding for the services we meet. Rewarding aspiration. Something that would never be thank you, mr. Speaker. May i think the Prime Minister. It is a master class in the art i am sure, mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the outstanding journalism that has gone into exposing the scandal of tax avoidance revealed by the Panama Papers. What they have driven home is what many people have felt. There is one rule for the super rest. Nd another for the i am honestly not sure that to Prime Minister fully appreciates the anger over the this injustice. How can it be right at street cleaners, teaching assistants, and nurses work and pay taxes yet some of the top think the rules do not apply to them. What has been revealed in the past week goes beyond. There are six questions. To the house and to the public as a whole. Firstly, why he chose not to declare his offshore tax investment in the house of commons register of interest. For any no requirement interest which might reasonably be thought to influence. Mishandled the events of the past week. Does he realize how he mishandled his declaration six years ago when he decided not to register and offshore tax haven and vestment from which you certainly benefited . Can he clarify when he sold his stake in 2010, he also disclosed another offshore investment, in particular, were there any of sold2,000 pounds shares he held in offshore tax havens . The ministerial code states that ministers must and sure no conflict arises or could be ariseably be ceased to between their personal and public duties, financial and otherwise and almost provide a full list of any that might give rise to a conflict, including close family interest. Did he provide his offshore interests and of not, did he realize he had a clear obligation to do so . Inn part of it was tied up offshore tax havens and he is now making policy decisions that have a direct bearing on their operation. In 2013, the Prime Minister road to the president of the European Council opposing central Public Registers of Beneficial Ownership of offshore trusts. Does the Prime Minister now accept that transparency of Beneficial Ownership must be extended to offshore trusts . The panamabased law for registered more than 100,000 secret firms in the British Virgin islands. It is a scandal that u. K. Andseas territories, registers shell companies. The truth is the u. K. Is that the heart of the global tax avoidance industry. It is a National Scandal and it has got to end. Last year this government opposed the in you tax commissioner. Black list of 30 uncooperative tax havens. The black list included the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin islands. Will the Prime Minister now stop european plans for a blacklist of tax havens. It turns