Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP HARDtalk

great man. That's it from me. Time to bring your HARDtalk.

These are tough times to be in power. In the UK politicians battle

with the impact of the financial crisis, their every action

scrutinised by a vigilant sometimes even intrusive media. My guest

today on HARDtalk is the Conservative MP, Zac Goldsmith. He

is from one of Britain's most famous and rich families. He has

had his personal e-mails accessed during the hacking scandal. He

wants a privacy law. He is at odds with his party leadership over

Europe and the environment. Is he damaging the very causes he wants

to advance by being too outspoken and disloyal to the government?

Zac Goldsmith, welcome to HARDtalk. You have had your personal e-mails

accessed, but frankly, many would say, that is one of the risks you

have to take being rich and famous. That is the argument that has been

used many, many times. I watched a Hugh Grant's submission to the

Leveson inquiry, I was very impressed. If I was to send you a

pint of milk, you would agree to pay whatever the price beforehand,

that does not give you the right to enter my house uninvited, open my

fridge and burgle the milk. That is right. When people engage with the

media on every level, there is a two way process. It is a mutually

agreed process. The Leveson inquiry you are talking about, Lord Lasan

looking into the allegations about the links between the press and

people who hacked into e-mails and so on. The fact is, which you have

become a Conservative MP if he were not from a rich and famous family?

Your two grandfathers were Conservative MPs. You're late

father, the famous industrialist. do not describe my sister as a

Conservative. She is well known. principal concern is the

environment. That is a cross-party issue. That is not just by the

Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats or Labour. That is my

principal motivation. My bias, my default position is more in sync

with Conservative thinking than with the other parties and that is

why I joined the Conservative Party. That is fine. When you said that

media interest in your affairs goes only so far... But you have

benefited from your name recognition? Absolutely. I was

editor of the ecologist magazine for ten years. That is not normally

of media interest, but it was because of my name. Why do you want

the privacy law? When you enter politics, in any case you expect

the bar to be higher. I would not apply the same rules to myself as

other people. I believe someone like Hugh Grant is entitled to

privacy. He is one of many people giving evidence at the inquiry.

are entitled to privacy. I think there is a limit. If I were to rush

around my constituency portraying myself as something which I am not,

whenever hypocrisy can be exposed by the press it should be. Whenever

hypocrisy it may be revealed by the press... In 2009 you were not a MP.

You're standing in 2010. There were revelations of your non domiciled

tax status. I think that is entirely legitimate. I think the

reports are wrong, I know they are wrong. I have had the status all my

life. I have not avoided paying tax. I had a letter from Price

Waterhouse my accountants. My constituents had a right to know.

Your party leader was not Prime Minister at the time. He said he

had been checked in the dark. never asked me to change it. A lot

of things are reported in the press... I never had a conversation.

I was asked by the Times, do you have none domicile status? The

answer was no. Did the leadership ask you to change it? No-one ever

asked me to change it. You say you did not get any financial benefits

from it, but as Vince Cable said, he is now a Cabinet minister, being

a nun domicile gives off the wrong citizen. It is for short-term

expatriates in the city and it is becoming discredited. I do accept

that. Ten years ago no-one knew what the term meant. Nowadays we do.

It was a label attached to me without my knowledge. It was not

something I knew about or took advantage. The reality is, I have

not avoided paying tax. I was able to persuade my constituents, I had

a larger swing than anyone else in the country. I believe I got my

arguments across. You want a privacy law. I think we need to.

This is an area where there is a huge outrage about elements of the

media. We have seen abuse of power on an awesome scale. It is accepted

that this is an organisation that is too big. You say awesome. Let me

tell you what Professor Steven Barnett says, professor of

communications at Westminster University, much of the truly

egregious behaviour is down to corporate culture, not individual

bad intent. I 100% agree with him. This awesome power that the

organisation has, it abuses the power. When you have an entire

political class that is terrified of pointing the finger. I think

that becomes very dangerous for democracy. I would like to see a

reaction in law. There would be a huge catastrophe if we got it wrong.

I want the press to be able to point the finger and expose

hypocrisy for all. I want there to be a line, an acceptable line,

beyond which the press has no right to probe. That is what I hope will

emerge from this incredible fiasco that we are seen at the moment.

say you do not want to stifle the media. Let me tell you what Ian

Hislop says, if you are rich and powerful, you do not have to prove

it is not true, you just have to prove it is private. You are one of

some very well off people, who have able -- been able to keep their

private life out of the media. have taken out a super-injunction.

But this is not an act which anyone, including in his lot, would oppose.

My e-mails where illegally hacked. They are private. Newspapers have

no business publishing them. cost you a fortune? That is a

problem. Access to justice should not cost a fortune. But you can

afford it. I want a change in the law so that everyone has access to

justice when necessary. We need to recognise that the newspapers

nowadays are the rich and the powerful. It is about time the

authorities help them to account. That has not happened. That is why

we are seeing this extraordinary thing happened at the moment.

Jeremy Hunt says we do not want a privacy law, that does not mean we

were not look at some access of the legislation, to try and get it

right. Are you satisfied with that? I wanted in-law what is private and

what is public. If we do not do that the newspapers will always be

able to cross the line in an unhealthy man of -- manner. We have

to see what the outcome of the Leveson inquiry is on that. This

idea of the rich and famous. We see many protest all over the world

about the growing gap between the rich and poor and inequality. What

do you think about that? I have a lot of sympathy. I have a lot of

sympathy for this outpouring of anger that we are seeing. I would

like to see the message encapsulated and made more Treasury.

-- coherent. When things get too big we lose our bargaining power.

When the newspaper gets too big we cannot hold them to account. When

the government gets too big which cannot hold democracy to account.

That is one of the problems with the European Union. We have created

a situation where organisations and institutions have got too big. If

that is the message of the protesters by M 100% behind them.

What do you not like about them? I am 100%. I do not want it engage in

any criticism. But overcrowding a public space... We are seeing in

some European countries, Italy and Greece, they have got unelected

government by technocrats. People talking about a disconnect between

people and their governments. The IMF and European Central Bank are

calling the shots... That is an extreme example. A lot of people

argue that a lot of the decisions made in this country are made by

unelected officials. In Brussels? Because of the European Union, our

government has had to ignore Parliament. That is a really

serious thing. You have to wonder what is the point of elections in

this country. You want Britain out of the European Union. You will one

of those Conservative MPs who voted against the government's wishes,

saying you back a referendum deciding Britain's relationship

with the European Union. In the ideal world, the outcome I would

like is where we see genuine renegotiation. There are all kinds

of hours I would like to see restored to this country. I think

it would be very difficult. I do not think any government would be

able to renegotiate the repatriation without a referendum.

We probably need to withdraw to decide what kind of future we want

with Europe. You disobeyed the party leadership by voting for a

referendum, you paid for the -- paid the price for that, didn't

you? You had been appointed a government special envoy on climate

change, that had been taken away from you. It has. I was fired

before the announcement was made. There was announcement by the

President of Gabon. It was picked up by the newspaper's... You were

told? This is an area of real interest to me. I will focus on our

role as a backbencher, as an envoy if that happens, I do not need a

formal position to maintain my interest. That is one of the

reasons I became an MP. undermine David Cameron? You have

done that. You voted against him, the largest backbench rebellion

since World War II. You have the three-line whip imposed by your

party or constituents, I made a pledge to my constituents. I made

it very clear, if I'm given an opportunity to vote for

renegotiation or repatriation of Irrespective of whether you

undermine the Prime Minister? It was humiliation for the Prime

Minister. If he can't win an argument with his backbenchers how

can he win it with the Country? This was handled badly. There was a

good consensus for the need of a rethink in relations with Europe.

By imposing 33-line the route, so it was a mistake. A petition was

signed by more than 100,000 people. They got it wrong. Maybe it was

embarrassing. But I am described as a rebellious backbencher. You

describe me as that. But I have voted with my party more than 90%

of the time. If that is anything other than loyalty, you need to

rethink those terms. Europe is a big issue. It was the fact that you

were part of the biggest ever at backbencher rebellion since the war

resulted in these kind of comments about humiliation. You suffered by

not having your job as a Climate Change Minister. I did not stand

for election to have a lobotomy. I am an independent backbencher. I

will always put my conscience and my constituents first. If I had

voted against that motion I would not have been able to look my

family, my constituents or myself in the i. It would have been

impossible to carry on. I am not the kind of employee. I am happy to

be an effective backbencher. I am learning. There are things I can do

as a backbencher which I could not do as a junior minister. That would

be a hellish existence. I like to get things done. I want to change

things. You want to be influential on the environment. What influence

are you will drink? The Government is going back on its environmental

credentials. The Government has been unfairly chat sties. I am a

green. I am very interested in this issue. If you look at what the

Government promised before the election and what made it into the

Coalition agreement, twice as many environmental commitments as any

other area of policy. And it is being delivered. We have a Green

investment Bank. It is not as big as we would have liked. It is a �3

billion fund. It is not big enough or soon enough but it is a big step

in the right direction. We have the green deal which is the most

Biggest efficiency energy programme in the world. It needs to be over-

charged.-Turbo-charge. But the Government is on track. Raising the

Speed limit to 80mph? Those figures have been debated. It is not an

issue that agitates me at all. Nobody will change this be because

of those laws. The key thing is we understand the priorities and

pursue them. We are beginning to. I cannot pretend the entire body of

the Treasury has fully understood the transition that we have to make.

I can't pretend they all understand that. For many people in Treasury,

environmental policy is still a cost. That is hugely important. But

the Treasury is more open to these ideas than ever before. When George

Osborne told the Tory party conference that he would not save

the planet by it putting the country out of business, business

interests would be paramount? he said is not new or wrong. One

concern was that he said it. The biggest risk if you ask any

business investor in the green technology sector, they will tell

you is the Government, political conservatism. When you hear this

kind of thing it makes you reluctant to pouring money in. I

would like to see more clarity. It is not a big boast because we have

never had a Green government. We must be greener than we ever had

have been before. We need to promote the green deal, expand

Green investment. But that is not being done. Let me tell you what

Tim Montgomerie told you. He said the Government has decided this is

a boat-losing issue, green issues. -- vote-listen. A poll earlier this

year asked voters what their main concerns were. The top of the list

was the rising price of energy. That has always been the case. If

you ask people who are hungry, their top concern will be food. If

you do not have a house, your concern is shelter. If your

children are it hopeless schools, your concern is education. But that

does not mean the environment is not the most important concern. For

a responsible government must recognise that. At a time of

economic crisis if we must find solutions that work with business

and human nature. But you do not agree with your own party on the

nuclear issue. The Government backs nuclear power. You do not. I think

the Government policy is about right. It is the same policy I

advocated before the election. My view it is if the Government sticks

to the policy there will not be any new power plants. Let me make a

prediction. The only way we will seek new nuclear power plants is if

the Government breaks its promise on subsidies. There has never been

a nuclear power plant built without public subsidies. We will see what

happens. But the gist of what I have been saying about privacy laws,

Europe and the environment, is that you are marching out of step with

the party leadership. I heard what you said about wanting to be an

effective backbencher, but some would say why it did you go into

politics and joined the Conservative Party because you knew

you had to toe the line stopover I see my job in Parliament as

reminding people of the biggest shoes. We had a debate about fuel

costs. I agreed with a lot of it but nobody made the point that

Western democracies and $1 trillion every year to unstable regimes

because of higher addictions to oil. We must reduce our dependence on

oil to solve these problems. Yes in the short-term level we must help

people through the economic price - - crisis, but the only long-term

solution is good policy. That is why I got involved in politics.

would you remain a rebel with a cause? The I am not pursuing a

ministerial career, but I have a lot of time for David Cameron.

There are some good people in government pushing this agenda. My

job is to push the Government, keep them on their toes, scrutinise

decisions. Our job as backbenchers is to hold the Government to

account. That does not happen enough. We need more independence

on the backbench. We must give the Government a hard time on a routine