And Lord Paul, the former Labour peer, has told ITV news that he closed his Swiss bank account four years ago.

According to Andy Bell, Labour is not going to back down over its Lord Fink allegations. (See 4.30pm.)

Kamal Ahmed, the BBC’s business editor, has written a good blog on the public accounts committee’s hearing with Lin Homer. He thinks there were three key revelations.

First, HMRC has now revealed it is looking to expand the scope of its investigation and is meeting other law enforcement agencies later this week.

Sources tell me that HMRC is likely to meet both the Serious Fraud Office and the police. Jennie Grainger, HMRC’s director general of enforcement, told MPs that they wanted to “collaborate” with other agencies.

If the SFO and the police launch separate investigations, that would be a serious escalation for HSBC. The bank says that it has reformed the operations of its Swiss private banking arm and standards of compliance are now much higher.

Second, HMRC will also look at money laundering in connection with the HSBC data following discussions with the French authorities earlier this week.

Third, HMRC initially believed that up to 150 of the people on the HSBC data list could face criminal prosecutions.

Gauke says the government has been tough on avoidance and evasion.

Its measures will raise £7.6bn in 2015-16, he says. Labour’s measures will not raise anything like this, he says.

Gauke says the Labour motion (see 9.13am) suggests some measures for future action. But there is no point proposing ideas that do not work.

For example, the government considered the idea of introducing deeming criteria to restrict false self-employment in the construction industry. But this would require bricklayers to provide their own bricks, he says.

He says the government also looked at closing the quoted Eurobonds exemption loophole, but decided this would not raise money.

Gauke says the government has closed “loophole after loophole” in the tax system left by Labour.

It has made more than 40 changes to the tax system, he says.

Shabana Mahmood intervenes again. Does Gauke think Lord Green should make a statement about what he knew about HSBC?

Gauke says it is up to Green to decide if he wants to make a statement.

Back in the Commons Shabana Mahmood has finished her openining. I will post more excerpts from it later.

David Gauke, the Treasury minister, is responding now.

He says Lord Green was a very effective trade minister.

No regulator has suggested he was at fault in relation to HSBC’s Swiss division.

At no point were ministers made aware of the evidence that has emerged in recent days of wrong-doing at HSBC itself.

Shabana Mahmood intervenes. The media reports at the time made it clear that there were problems with HSBC, she says.

Gauke says people could have accounts in Switzerland without committing an offence.

It was known that a disk was acquired at the time with the names of people with HSBC accounts. The investigation was into whether individuals had paid their tax.

The evidence we have seen recently, for example relating to bricks of cash being handed out, only came to the attention of ministers in the last few days.

Q: Were ministers told in 2010 when you asked the French authorities to use the information in the leaked disc?

Homer says she is not sure what happened. But they would have known if they had read the Financial Times.

Heaton-Harris jokes that they read the Guardian.

Homer says ministers would have been told.

Hodge says the committee is now going to move on to more general tax matters.

I will post a summary soon of what we have learnt from the HSBC exchanges.

I won’t be covering the rest of the hearing in detail, but I will be keeping on eye on it in case HSBC comes up again.

Chris Heaton-Harris, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: How would you answer the claim that it beggars belief that you did not tell the chancellor atbout the problems at HSBC?

Homer says the fact that people hide money in Swiss accounts is not new. The leaked disc provided information about individuals. It was widely known it was doing this. This was a regular activity.

It is a big jump from that to assume a wider group of people were complicit.

If we discovered a major UK organisation doing something suspect, people would know when we charged them. If we found evidence of that, we would charge them.

We talked to you about this data, she says. And we told you, as a committee.

We say when we have information and are going after people.

Homer says people knew HMRC had that data. It was in Financial Times at the end of 2009. “This was not secret.”

A Swiss bank had some clients who were not paying tax. But of the 3,000-odd we looked at, two thirds turned out to be compliant.

Q: What restrictions did the French impose when they gave you the information? And why did you accept them?

Homer says it is better to have some data than none at all. There is now £135m in the bank. HMRC has not lost money, she says.

She says HMRC has helped to get 90 countries to sign up to improved tax reporting.

HMRC was only meant to use them for tax collection.

Q: Why are other countries using this information to prosecute?

Homer says she does not know how many of those countries are using the information to follow money laundering. The UK is now getting permission for this.

Q: When did you get that?

Yesterday, says Homer.

Q: And did you ask the French authorities earlier to relax their conditions.

Yes, says Homer.

She says it is not the case that other countries are mounting prosecutions that are not taking place in the UK. The reports from other countries might just refer to discussions taking place, she says.

Hodge says she dealt with appointments as a minister. In that situation, you want as much information as possible, she says.

Q: According to the Guardian, Dave Hartnett, the former HMRC chief executive, had a lunch with HSBC in February 2011. Asked what was discussed, he said people would have to ask HSBC. So what was discussed?

Homer says she cannot say.

Q: But this is not about HSBC’s affairs? This is a matter of public interest.

Homer says she will look at the notes of the meeting, and consider what she can share with committee.

Q: Have you looked at it?

Yes, says Homer.

Q: So why can’t you tell us now? Why are you saying you need to look at it again?

Homer says she considers whether HMRC is too cautious about revealing information like this. She will look at it again.

Q: Why did you not tell the prime minister about the HSBC allegations when you were asked about Lord Green?

Homer says they were asked about his own tax affairs.

Q: But did you not think it would have been sensible to have told David Cameron about the tax evasion allegations?

Homer says HMRC supplies information in relation to a number of procedures.

What Hodge is asking is not realistic.

She is implying something wrong was going on at HSBC UK.

HMRC has one of the biggest databases in the world.

Back in the committee, Margaret Hodge asks about a list of people with HSBC accounts in Jersey.

Grainger says HMRC is looking at 170 of these names.

Q: Doesn’t this suggest tax avoidance and evasion was endemic at HSBC?

Homer says, if HMRC thinks there are corporate governance problems at a bank, it passes that information on to the appropriate authorities.

Q: Would you prefer to take prosecuting decisions in house?

Grainger says she thinks it is a good thing to have separation of powers.

Austin Mitchell says the tax avoidance industry in this country is bigger and more powerful than the tax collection industry.

Homer says marketed tax avoidance scheme are declining.

The tax avoidance industry may have better paid people, she says. But she does not think it has better people than HMRC.

Labour’s Austin Mitchell goes next.

Q: You seem very kindly (ie, these arrangements are very generous).

Homer says that is not the case. People have to pay penalties too.

Q: But don’t only pay a penalty of 10% of their liability.

Homer (or it could have been Grainger) says it can be as as high as 30%.

Q: How many cases have you settled under the Lichtenstein agreement?

Homer says all the cases settled will have been under this arrangement.

Of the 1,100 cases where HMRC identified people as owing tax, the majority will have been settled under Lichtenstein.

Q: And that means they are immune from future prosecution.

Homer says it is not immunity come what may. If people do no tell the truth, they lose their immunity.

Homer says ministers would have been told that they were about to receive a cache of information from the French.

Q: So did you inform people outside HMRC?

Homer says her predecessor mentioned this is a Commons committee hearing in 2011.

And HMRC put its own statement out at the end of 2011, telling people they should come forward.

Q: At what point did you tell people outside HMRC that you had the disc of evidence with information about HSBC accounts.

Homer says ministers would have been told.

Q: Who decided what to do with the disc.

Homer says it was Grainger’s predecessor.

Q: Was anyone outside HMRC involved?

CPS, when cases went to prosecution, says Homer.

Q: And no ministers?

That’s right, says Homer.

Jennie Grainger says HMRC sent three cases to the CPS for prosecution from the HSBC data. The CPS decided to take up one of them.

The Telegraph’s Christopher Hope thinks Lin Homer is holding up quite well.

Jennie Grainger, HMRC’s director general for enforcement and compliance, says it is very difficult to prosecute for offshore tax evasion.

With stolen data, you have to be able to prove your claims using other methods.

Richard Bacon says MPs went to jail because of data used from a stolen source.

Grainger says she did not say they needed alternative evidence; she said they need corroborative evidence.

Richard Bacon, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: Have you got the balance right?

Homer says the tax gap has decreased, and compliance has increased. And fewer people are using marketed schemes. So HMRC’s approach is working, she suggests.

Chris Heaton-Harris goes next.

Q: I am astonished the charge time for an individual, from when he hand over information to the CPS, is 44 months.

Homer says that is why HMRC uses civil penalties too.

Q: Why has there only been one prosecution?

Home says prosecution is only “one end of our tool kit”. It is an expensive option, she says.

Q: Prosecution has a deterrent effect. Only prosecuting one person implies that, if people are caught, there will just be a settlement. Doesn’t prosecuting only one person have the opposite effect?

Homer says she dos not accept that.

HMRC has increased its prosecutions five-fold.

But prosecutions are not the only things that can have a deterrent effect.

Homer says only the British and the Irish have convicted people on the basis of this information.

Q: Other countries are taking action.

They are considering action, says Homer.

Margaret Hodge says Herve Falciani did email HMRC in 2008 offering his data. HMRC did not respond. This has been reported in Le Monde.

Q: Why did you not respond?

Homer says today’s hearing was not meant to be about this.

Hodge says she made it clear this morning the hearing would be about HSBC.

Homer says she will sent a note about the Falciani email.

Hodge says she wants it quickly. And she will publish it.

Q: Is it true you only asked the French yesterday if you could use the data to follow up tax avoidance cases?

No, says Homer. HMRC asked for permission to use the data in this way originally. But the French imposed strict conditions. Now that the information has been made public, HMRC has gone back to the French asking for those conditions to be lifted.

Q: Did you ask the French if you could use the information to investigate tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Not in those terms, says Homer. But she says things that get written in newspapers do not stand up to the tests needed to secure a conviction in court.

Chris Heaton-Harris, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: This was a big chunk of information. I cannot understand why you either did not take it, if it was offered to you, or you did not ask for it.

Jennie Grainger, the HMRC director general for enforcement and compliance, says the French had the information. But they had to carve it up on a country by country basis.

Heaton-Harris says HMRC believed that the information it got from the French was the same as the information it could have got in 2013. But it did not check, he says.

Homer says it did check.

Q: What what if the illustrious Guardian missed something? Why not check the original material?

Homer says it would not be cost-effective to analyse the same set of information twice.

Homer says HMRC thinks it has looked at all the cases that have come to light.

It is carrying out checks. And it will look at new information. But there is nothing to suggest it is missing significant amounts of information, she says.

Hodge says one of the reasons she is angry with Homer is that HSBC has just sat there, without seeking out information.

Homer says that is not true. “We are very proactive”.

She says they have told Panorama they would take the information.

Then ask for it, says Homer.

We have, says Homer.

Q: Why did you not contact Herve Falciani, the HSBC whistleblower?

Homer says it was because they thought they had all the information he had provided.

Within the last few information has come to light suggesting he had more information.

For example, the Guardian has suggested that there were more than 6,800 accounts.

Q: The Panorama team have offered to give you their information. But you did not take them up on this. You should talk to Falciani. Did you ask for money?

Not that I’m aware of, says Homer.

Q: You were offered the data in 2008?

Homer disputes that.

Q: That is in the public domain.

Not to my knowledge, says Homer.

Margaret Hodge says, when you read some of these stories, “it is pretty outrageous what was going on”.

There was evidence of tax evasion, not tax avoidance. This is very serious, she says.

She says this leaves her believing “that you are not serving the British taxpayer”.

Homer says more information has now appeared in the last few days.

HMRC is going to take this up with the media.

Q: Why did you not talk to the French authorities in 2010?

We did, says Homer.

Homer says HMRC has now reached settlement on all bar 130 of the 1,100 cases it identified.

She says prosecutions are only one part of the tool kit. HMRC is concerned about recovering money.

It has recovered £135m. She says she does not accept that this is worse than other countries.

Margaret Hodge says the French recovered £200m and the Spanish recovered £185m. But they had fewer names to look at, she says.

Homer says HMRC can only recover money that is due. She says three quarters of the names did not owe money.

Q: Is that because of non-dom status?

Partly, says Homer.

Homer says she wants to talk about HSBC.

Solace is the name of the HMRC operation looking at the names on the leaked disc.

HMRC got the data in April 2010.

Over 300 staff were working on this project, she says.

They looked at 6,800 entities. They identified 3,600 individuals, and found 3,200.

They sorted them into three groups: some who might be prosecuted (150), others who might be considered for cases of serious fraud (500); and another who might be followed up for unpaid tax (around 500).

The others did not seem to have done anything wrong.

HMRC fast-tracked those in the first group. Some moved into the compliance sections. After talks with the CPS, only one case passed the test for prosecution.

Margaret Hodge starts with HSBC.

Q: When a bank actively supports a client by giving them a credit card, and the customer withdraws money that should have been declared for tax purposes in the UK, is the bank facilitating tax evasion?

It depends, says Lin Homer, on a range of factors.

Q: If a banker sits down with a client and tells him how to withdraw $2m in cash from an undeclared account, is the bank facilitating tax evasion or tax avoidance?

Homer says she cannot say that easily.

When HMRC pursues a prosecution, it takes 44 months to get it to court. These are not simple matters, Homer says.

Hodge says Homer has been in the job three years and has had time to think about this.

The public accounts committee hearing is starting.

Margaret Hodge, the committee chairman, starts by telling Lin Homer that it is not for her to decide who appears before the committee.

She expects Edward Troup to appear in March, she says.

On the World at One Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, explained why HMRC prosecutes so few people for tax evasion.

HMRC rarely prosecutes many of these case because they are hugely expensive to mount. You have got wealthy people who will mount a defence. It is extremely difficult to prove a crime.

Here’s a Guardian video with excerpts from PMQs.

On the World at One Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, said David Cameron was wrong to say at PMQs that Umunna had invited Lord Green on a trade mission.

What he said was that I invited Stephen Green on a trade mission, which is categorically not true. I invited him to a local event for small businesses organised by Lambeth Council and the Federation of Small Businesses. I am not aware that Lambeth is a foreign country, so let’s just be clear on one thing, I did not invite him on a trade mission.

I do not disagree with Ken [Clarke] that [Green] was seen and respected as a trade minister. However if you are inviting the trade minister to come and talk to your local business, you are entitled to expect that the prime minister who has appointed him has carried out due diligence.

I’ve taken the quote from PoliticsHome.

A Labour aide has been in touch to point out that Lord Paul, a former Labour donor who has had an HSBC Swiss bank account, is no longer a party member. He resigned from the party in 2010, and sits as a non-affiliated peer.

Parliament’s intelligence and security committee has put out a statement on claims that MI5 or MI6 asked for information to be redacted from the US senate committee’s report on the torture of terrorist suspects to conceal evidence of British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees.

The committee says it is satisfied this did not happen. Here’s an extract from its statement.

It has been alleged that the UK may have requested redactions to the Senate report to conceal evidence of UK complicity in the mistreatment of detainees. From the evidence we have seen and heard, we conclude that these allegations are unfounded.

The UK Agencies did request redactions to the primary material which was used by the Senate Committee when drafting its full report. We have seen these requests and can confirm that all were directly related to national security interests. They do not concern UK involvement or complicity in, or awareness of, the mistreatment of detainees.

The CIA themselves proposed redactions to the Executive Summary and Minority Views relating to UK intelligence material, to which the UK Agencies agreed. From the evidence we have seen, the CIA proposals related directly to national security interests, and the UK Agencies did not request any additional redactions to these documents. However that evidence is limited. We note that the UK Agencies were at no stage provided with the draft reports. Rather they were given sight of heavily-edited extracts, which they could not retain. We have seen the Agencies’ internal file notes, but not the specific redactions proposed by the CIA. Subsequently, the Senate Committee objected to some of the CIA’s proposals, and there therefore needed to be further consultations between the CIA and the UK Agencies about the redactions previously discussed.

At the post-PMQs huddle journalists have been trying to get an answer from the prime minister’s spokesperson about whether David Cameron discussed tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green. According to Paul Waugh, they haven’t been making much progress.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says Sir Brian Leveson in a recent report recommended curtailing jury trial.

Cameron says jury trial is very important. He does not want to see it reduced.

Labour’s Graham Allen says levels of voter disengagement are unacceptable. Will Cameron commit himself to a convention that would give everyone a copy of the nation’s rulebook, such as a written constitution, so that everyone feels part of our democracy.

Cameron says he respects Allen, but he doubts that another constitutional convention is the answer. It is more important to address problems, like English votes for English laws. It is disappointing that Labour don’t agree.

Labour’s Phil Wilson asks Cameron to confirm he never had a conversation with Lord Green about tax evasion.

Cameron says Green’s appointment was welcomed by Labour. The government has cracked down on this more than Labour.

Labour’s Chi Onwurah says there are adverts in Newcastle asking people to report benefit cheats. Why does Cameron not feel as strongly about tax evasion?

Cameron says he does feel strongly about this. For example, under Labour people could cut their tax by being paid through a company, or being paid through a trust. Both practices have been banned by the government.

Sir Peter Tapsell, the Conservative MP and father of the House, says it is often wise to acknowledge the concept of spheres of influence. Ukraine is of no strategic importance to the UK. But Greece is. And there is a danger of Greece falling into the Russian sphere of influence without a shot being fired.

Cameron says making sure that aggression is not rewarded in relation to Ukraine is important.

Cameron says the government is determined to listen to whistleblowers in the NHS, unlike Labour.

Karen Lumley, a Conservative, says Labour campaign bus for women is a “patronising stunt”.

Cameron says the wheels are falling off the bus of Labour’s women’s campaign. Surprise, surprise, it is not going to be driven by a frontbencher, he says; it is going to be driven by Unite.

Labour’s Sharon Hodgson asks if Cameron had conversations with Lord Green about tax avoidance at HSBC. And, if not, why not?

Cameron says when he appointed Green efvery proper process was followed. He consulted the cabinet secretary, and the official in charge of ethics. The House of Lords appointments committee also approved the appointment. Labour welcomed the appointment, and three years later were still holding meeting with him.

Labour’s Michael Connarty says the last Labour government prosecuted more companies for tax evasion than this one has done.

Cameron says he has put tax evasion at the top of the G20 agenda. There are no information sharing systems with countries, including Switzerland. These problems took place while Labour was in power. Labour only started talking about this after the government acted, he says.

Labour’s John Mann says increasing security around synagogues cannot wait until May.

Cameron praises Mann for the work he has done on this. He has ensured the police are in contact with the relevant organisations. He is happy to meet Mann to discuss this.

Cameron says the government is committed to seven-day opening for GPs in England. He urges the NHS in Wales, and the Labour government in Wales, to extend access to GPs in Wales.

Cameron says prosecutions for tax evasion have gone up five-fold since 2010.

But, in this country, the prosecuting authorities are independent of government. That is different in other countries. There is a word for that: corruption. But that is what Labour seems to be proposing, he says.

Peter Lilley, a Conservative, says the government has presided over the creation of 2m private sector jobs.

Cameron says Lilley is right. He says Miliband said the goverment’s policies would cost 1m jobs. He was 1m% wrong.

Labour’s Peter Hain asks about a constituent who is losing his free motorbility scooter.

Cameron says he will look into this.

Cameron says he is pleased to announce plans that will see the roll out of free wifi on trains from 2017. The government will contribute £50m to this.

Asked why the government is not giving public sector workers in the pay rise, Cameron says everyone in the NHS will get at least 1%, and that, because of progression pay, some workers will get 2, 3 or 4%.

Miliband says Cameron was turning a blind eye. This is what we saw with Andy Coulson.

Cameron says this is desperate stuff. Miliband cannot go in front of business, because he has offended them. He cannot go to Scotland, because he is toxic. He has even offended nuns.

Miliband says there is something toxic at the heart of this government. It’s Cameron.

Cameron says Labour is desperate because they are losing.

Miliband says Cameron is a dodgy leaders surrounded by dodgy donors. Does Cameron really think people will believe that Lord Green knew nothing about the problems with HSBC when he was made a minister.

Cameron says Labour welcomed Green’s appointment as a minister. And Green went on a trade mission with a Labour figure. Last week Miliband asked six times about the tax treatment of hedge funds. The policy was introduced in the autumn of 1997 by Labour, and it was extended in 2007, by Labour. At the time the City minister was “Ed Somebody”.

Miliband says Cameron does not care about tax avoidance, but on this day he will be held accountable. In 2011 the minister in charge issued a press release about the investigation into HSBC account holders. Will people believe Cameron never had a conversation with Green about this?

Camerons says Labour welcomed Green’s appointment, and were holding meetings with him until 2013. Labour were the friends of the tax dodgers. Cameron says he stands up for hard working people.

Ed Miliband raises the latest Guardian story about Tory donors. How can Cameron explaing the revolviung door between the Conservatives and tax avoidance?

Cameron says he has seen the list. It includes Lord Paul, who funded Gordon Brown’s election campaign.

Miliband says none of those people gave to Labour under his leadership. Lord Fink gave £3m, and was a Conservative Treasurer. Has he investigated Fink’s tax avoidance?

Cameron says that, unlike Labour donors, Tory donors don’t pick the party leader. Miliband is leader because the unions decided he was more leftwing than his brother.

Here’s a good spot from my colleague Patrick Wintour.

PMQs is starting in a few minutes.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here.

As for the rest of the papers, here’s the PoliticsHome list of top 10 must-reads, and here’s the ConservativeHome round-up of today’s politics stories.

And here are two stories I found particularly interesting.

• Francis Elliott in the Times (paywall) says David Cameron has ordered his ministers to clear a backlog of government business.
  

David Cameron has warned cabinet ministers to clear a mounting backlog of government work amid fears that Whitehall is starting to grind to a halt before the general election.

The prime minister, already irritated by claims of a “zombie parliament”, made clear his frustration at the slowing pace of government in cabinet, according to senior figures. “He was very clear that we have to keep going at full pace for the finishing line,” said one senior minister.

• Jim Pickard and Gavin Jackson in the Financial Times (subscription) says donations to Labour from individuals are less than half what they were in the last parliament.
  

Donations to Labour from individuals have slumped to less than half of their level during the last parliament, highlighting the party’s difficulty in appealing to wealthy business figures.

The opposition party received just £8.7m from private donors in the current legislative session, compared to £20.7m in the same period of the last parliament, according to an analysis by the Financial Times of Electoral Commission figures.

New cameras are going to be installed in the House of Commons chamber to provide a more flattering view of MPs, the Press Association reports.

Voters are due to see a better side of their MPs after the general election - with new camera angles being introduced in the House of Commons.

The ruling Commons Commission has approved the use of more flattering eye-level shots following an “off-air” trial last month.

The move comes after a BBC documentary team was allowed to film on the floor of the House during prime minister’s Questions for the first time.

The handful of high, fixed camera positions in the Commons have long been a source of irritation among MPs and broadcasters.

The front benches come off particularly badly as a result, with bags under their eyes and receding hairlines cruelly emphasised.

Despite a series of trials, there has previously been resistance to extra positions at eye level, with concerns expressed that MPs’ view of the Speaker could be obscured.

But the latest scheme, with cameras discreetly mounted looking along the government and opposition benches, has won approval from John Bercow and the commission.

Minutes of its meeting this week state: “Following the success of a recent trial, the Commission endorsed a proposal to install additional cameras in the House of Commons Chamber.”

The new cameras are expected to go live after the election.

Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London, has urged David Cameron to hold the planned EU referendum next year, not in 2017. Speaking on LBC, he said he agreed with the British Chambers of Commerce director general, John Longworth, about this.

Let’s get it done and knock it on the head and do it for the good of Europe. This problem is not going away. The whole Eurozone is mired in low growth, low productivity, they have a very anti-competitive environment there, a terrible system of regulation coming from Brussels.

Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, says Tories like Johnson are being “hugely irresponsible”.

Boris Johnson is just the latest senior Conservative to try and use the issue of a European referendum to jockey for position within the Party.

The very fact that the Conservatives seem more interested in talking about the date, than about change in Europe shows that they are more interested in exit than in reform.

A Europe policy built on constantly shifting sands all adds to the risk and uncertainty for British business and jobs.

It is hugely irresponsible to play with Britain’s future in this way. The changing position on Europe is not the exercise of leadership. It is the absence of leadership.

Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, has been defending the party’s decision to use a pink van for its women’s campaign battlebus. She told ITV’s Good Morning Britain:

We just wanted an eye-catching colour, so we didn’t want our normal Labour red and this is the colour that it is. But I think the reason it has to be eye-catching is that there’s a big hole in our democratic politics at the moment. And, you know, in 2010 at the last general election, 9.1m women didn’t vote and that’s because they just don’t think that politicians have got any interest in their lives or understand their lives or have got anything to offer to them ...

When we go to Stevenage to launch it today, I think the one thing that women will be discussing with us will not be, actually, probably the colour of the bus; they’ll probably be discussing, you know, whether they get the same pay as men in their workplace, the same opportunities, whether they’re tearing their hair out looking for childcare, whether if they’re looking [after] older relatives they can combine that with work.

Coverage of the bus in the tabloids hasn’t been generous. In the Sun the story has been written up under the headline “Hattie’s batty battlebus”, and in the Daily Mail it’s “Harriet’s pink Barbie bus”, with the sub-head: “How Harriet Har-person, feminist champion, patronises women!”

For the record, here are today’s YouGov GB polling figures.

Labour: 35%

Conservatives: 33%

Ukip: 13%

Greens: 8%

Lib Dems: 6%

Government approval: -19

According to Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour a majority of 16.

And here are election predictions from a variety of organisations.

Elections Etc: Conservatives 282, Labour 279, SNP 41, Lib Dems 23, Ukip 3

Election Forecast: Conservatives 285, Labour 280, SNP 35, Lib Dems 27, Ukip 2

Prof Paul Whiteley: Labour 291, Conservatives 281, Lib Dems 48

(These are all academic forecasts, based on models that using current polling data and make allowance for how polls shift in the run up to an election.)

May 2015: Labour 271, Conservatives 271, SNP 56, Lib Dems 25, Ukip 4

(This is based on current polling, taking into account Lord Ashcroft’s seat by seat polling.)

The Telegraph’s Christopher Hope has a good tale. He says that Edward Troup, HMRC’s tax assurance commissioner, has been pulled from this afternoon’s public accounts committee hearing.

Here’s an extract from his story.

Edward Troup, HMRC’s second permanent secretary, was due to appear alongside Lin Homer, HMRC’s chief executive, and Jim Harra, the director general of business tax, in front of the influential Public Accounts Committee this afternoon.

The session is notionally about the work of HMRC. But the trio were due to be grilled by the MPs about why more action was not taken against a list of 6,000 former clients of HMRC’s Swiss arm whose details were leaked to HMRC in 2010.

However HMRC told the committee this morning at the 11th hour that he will not be attending.

Margaret Hodge MP, the committee’s chairman, is understood to be furious about the last minute withdrawal and has ordered him to appear on 4 March at a special hearing into HSBC and the controversy about historic tax avoidance at its Swiss subsidiary.

And here’s some reaction to Nicola Sturgeon’s comments.

From Margaret Curran, the Labour MP and shadow Scottish secretary

Scotland can’t afford another five years of David Cameron, but Nicola Sturgeon wants to help the Tories get back into power. Every vote for the SNP in May is another boost for David Cameron, and makes it more likely that he will be prime minister for another five years.

Labour has a fair plan to balance the books but the SNP have stood against Labour’s progressive policies, such as the 50p tax for top earners.

From Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem Scottish secretary

All the bombast in the world will not change the reality that the UK government’s economic strategy is working. Whether Nicola Sturgeon likes it or not, this government has cut borrowing by £52n from the level we inherited. That’s why the markets have regained confidence, the cost of borrowing and mortgages is at a record low, and we are vying with the United States for the strongest economic growth in the G7. We have achieved this despite the continued economic trouble affecting our immediate partners, especially our largest trading partner - the eurozone.

If the first minister has something serious to say on this subject matter, now is the time to say it. By how much would she raise taxes, and by how much would she cut spending in the next parliament? Or does she want to go back to the days of high borrowing, high mortgage costs, and an ever-bigger debt problem for the next generation to pay off?

And here’s today election fact from the Press Association.

Peers are barred from being prime minister. The last to be prime minister was Tory the Marquis of Salisbury who retired in 1902. Conservative the Earl of Home had to renounce his peerage when he went into Downing Street in 1963. As Sir Alec Douglas Home, he secured a seat in the Commons after winning a by-election at Kinross and Perthshire West.

On Newsnight last night Matthew Hancock, the Conservative minister, was asked to defend the government’s record dealing with the HSBC allegations. It was not a particularly happy experience for him.

Asked repeatedly by the presenter, Evan Davis, to explain what ministers knew about the allegations, which, as the Guardian reports, where discussed openly in a Commons select committee in 2011 in general terms, Hancock said it was “not appropriate” for ministers to know about specific investigations by HMRC into individuals.

(But the complaint is not that ministers did not know about about an investigation into Mr X, or whoever, but that the whole problem with HSBC’s Swiss arm seems to have been ignored.)

Hancock was on slightly stronger ground when asked if he understood why people were so angry about the fact that only one of the 1,100 people who have been investigated has been prosecuted (a key fact in the Labour motion - see 9.13am). Hancock replied:

I, for instance, have been one of the leading people saying that those at the head of large banks that are systemically important should be liable for criminal prosecutions if they behave negatively. Because people need to know when people in positions of authority like that make a big mistake then they are held to account. And so I completely understand the anger. Sometimes these prosecutions are very complicated. I don’t know the details of it – it’s best that I don’t. But, boy, do these people who make these decisions need to be held to account.

Hancock was referring to the way that he personally pushed for penalties to be tightened for bankers who behave recklessly.

The revelations about how HSBC allowed its Swiss banking arm to collude in multi-million pound tax dodging have been astounding - for example, they seem to be turning the Scotsman’s Peter Jones into a revolutionary - and today they’re going to dominate proceedings in the House of Commons. They are almost certain to come up at PMQs; then they will features in a public accounts committee hearing with officials from HM Revenue and Customs; and finally they will be debated in the Commons. I will be focusing on all these developments.

As usual, I will try to keep an eye on the other stuff too. Here’s the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Steve Webb, the pensions minister, gives a speech to the Resolution Foundation.

12pm: David Cameron faces Ed Miliband at PMQs.

12.30pm: Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, makes a statement in the Commons on Sir Robert Francis’s report into NHS whistleblowers.

2pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, gives a speech about how austerity has failed. Sturgeon was on the Today programme earlier. I will post highlights from her interview shortly.

2pm: Justice Lowell Goddard, the new chair of the child abuse inquiry, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

2.15pm: Lin Homer, chief executive of HM Revenue and Customs, and other HMRC officials give evidence to the Commons public accounts committee.

Around 4.30pm: MPs begin a Labour debate on the HSBC revelations.

As usual, I will be also covering all the breaking political news from Westminster, as well as bringing you the most interesting political comment and analysis from the web and from Twitter. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow