John McDonnell is right to call for the Queen to open up her financial records

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The Queen has been embarrassed by revelations that the Royal household invested millions offshore (EPA)

John McDonnell is right to say that the Queen should open up her full financial records in the wake of the Paradise Papers scandal. The revelation that the Duchy of Lancaster invested millions of the Queen’s money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, arrangements which are not set out in the royal household’s annual statements, begs obvious questions about the quality of advice being currently given.

The papers also revealed details about how the British Government had been influenced by offshore lobbyists in the lead-up to the 2013 G8 summit, whose themes were tax evasion and transparency.

While neither May nor Hammond will do anything about this, parliamentary committees could and should act.

Labour MPs should be demanding answers regarding what the papers called a “superb penetration of UK policymakers” by lobbyists on behalf of the International Financial Centres Forum (IFC) which represents offshore law firms. It’s little wonder the G8 measures on evasion and transparency in 2013 were so ineffective. Shouldn’t the Public Accounts Committee be demanding to question Shona Riach, the senior Treasury official, who had a “crucial meeting”, according to the papers, with IFC representatives two days before the summit? Similar questions must be asked of David Gauke, the then exchequer secretary to the Treasury, who also had meetings with the IFC prior to the summit.

It’s clearly not only the Queen who has been embarrassed by the leaks, but the sad fact is that serial tax avoiders, like Tory donor Lord Ashcroft and the racing driver tipped for a knighthood, Lewis Hamilton, revealed no shame when named. The little embarrassment caused to the super-rich by the papers shows that laws must be changed.

Bernie Evans
Liverpool

Brexit is not a binary, simple option

Is it simply because our MPs are sat opposite each other, across a strip of carpet, that complex decisions are reduced to two options? The future of Brexit should not be, nor have been, boiled down to a “this or that” choice where the winners crow and the losers have to get over it.

If, as increasingly seems to be the case, there are more than two options (including abandonment), and if, as proven by Gina Miller, Parliament should have the last word, is it beyond the whit of our esteemed leaders to devise a way of letting MPs choose between three or more options where second choices are also expressed in the event of no majority decision? Society is not binary and our Government should exercise wisdom to reflect this.

Patrick Cosgrove
Shropshire

Ian Hall of Reading (Saturday’s Independent letters) says that “many Brexiteers are unaware that our armed forces could be seriously cut if Brexit tanks the economy.” Mr Hall appears to be unaware that the armed forces have already been cut to unacceptably low levels because the economy is already tanked. Brexit is largely about recovering control of our borders but, as Admiral Lord West has publicly drawn attention to, the Royal Navy has just three offshore patrol vessels to protect some 7,700 miles of coastline against illegal fishing, terrorists, people traffickers and illegal immigrants; so we are already too thinly stretched.

Robert Forsyth
Deddington

Editing out Kevin Spacey won’t solve the problem of sexual harassment

The move to re-stitch the film All the Money in the World by scrubbing out Kevin Spacey and replacing him with Christopher Plummer is a positive move in that the accused, although not yet convicted, Spacey should not be presented in any positive manner.

This is only a small step as the truth must be found, and after conviction of any guilty individuals, appropriate punishments must be given. This is also a time for proactive measures so that prevention becomes the priority.

The majority of people are good and should be protected and the few who take the wrong path must have the gate shut behind them.

Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia

Alex Salmond is making new, strange connections

Alex Salmond has found common purpose with a state-owned Russia propaganda outlet, Russia Today, where he will present a weekly show. Presumably those funding this TV channel take the view that someone dedicated to the break-up of the UK is good enough for them. I suspect the SNP central office will not share Mr Salmond’s pleasure with his latest media “coup”.

Keith Howell
West Linton

Priti Patel and Boris Johnson’s differing treatment clearly shows us what will be tolerated by May and what won’t

If I am allowed to assume Priti Patel would have been sacked by the Prime Minister had she not tendered her resignation, the world now knows what kind of behaviour is considered acceptable from UK government ministers.

The Prime Minister has provided the clearest possible signal that incompetence is not a reason to sack a minister.

And from the awful behaviour of our shameless Foreign Minister towards Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, we know that it is not only acceptable for ministers to tell lies to the electorate but also to do great potential damage to innocent citizens in their hour of need, and that it is just fine to play down their misdeeds when challenged in Parliament, without significant censure. It seems there are currently only two reasons why a minister should be sacked – they either have to admit to historic and/or current sexual misconduct, or to tell lies to the Prime Minister.

It is good that we now know, but are we really happy that there is only one person in the country that ministers are not allowed to lie to?

David Curran
Middlesex