06/11/2017 Newsnight

Lord Ashcroft, hi,

I'm Richard Bilton,

I work for Panorama,

sir,

can I have a quick word with you?

I've been trying to send you these

letters, but you wouldn't take them.

Sir, can I just have

a quick word with you?

Did you have tens of millions

in an offshore trust that

you secretly controlled, sir?

Does that mean you

could avoid millions

in tax through that trust?

Dear, dear, dear,

is that your response?

She doesn't remember anything.

Down

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 £3.3 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

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 not

just 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.

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 permeweda. We are a --

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 for joining

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. 1% 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, Osborne 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. One

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. On 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?

Offshore is a lot better behaved

than it was a decade or two ago.

There are some rightful questions

which can be asked about the extent

to which the international tax

system should allow certain

behaviours to be undertaken with

this huge data dump, 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

which are a bit more aggressive and,

in some cases, invasive.

Journalists have spent months

unravelling the Paradise papers, for

politicians and taxpayers, on

picking the indications could take

far longer. -- some cases, evasive.

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.

Peter, absolutely nothing illegal

about tax havens, no question people

go into them to do wrong.

It's a

question that has been raised in the

piece about ethics and morality. At

the end of the day, if an avoidance

scams, call it what you will, Dodge,

is going on, the government is

perfectly entitled, if you want, to

close it.

Let's be clear, OK, there

is secrecy, it isn't 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, not just 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 planning, but

it is avoidance.

No, the avoidance

you are talking about which 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.

Companies that invest in the Cayman

Islands do this to ensure

jurisdictions whether from market

and investments. They pay 100% of

the tax due in those jurisdictions.

The tax is distributed to their

investors by virtue of the common

reporting standards... 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? 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. There is secrecy insofar

as journalists 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 is your position

lying on the ethics of this, and

whether or not people can find out

what has been footwear, what

company, in any of these

territories? -- put where.

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 introduced by

the OECD. You then have another

organisation, 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 just more exchange

of information.

So actually the

reporting is better than it used to

be?

The transparency that we've

asked for from the government, which

they refused, what does that say?

What's wrong with transparency,

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.

INAUDIBLE

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.

Same 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 moral is, 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 corporate, 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 practices to the highest

standards. Infinitely higher than

what exists in the US.

Speaks

volumes about the complacency.

Thank

you very much.

Onto 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 issue

wasn't going to be the most

important thing. The most important

thing is about an Iranian Briton 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, when

I look at what she 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 rainy and

high Council of human rights said

over the weekend that Mr Johnson's,

to shed new light on what she had

been doing. -- Arabian high Council.

It shows she was there for something

other than a holiday. They have

urged the Foreign Office to correct

this mistake.

What has Boris Johnson

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. As he apologised to the

family?

Not as far as we know.

This

isn't just about Boris Johnson. Mrs

Patel has been doing something, as

well.

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.

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 thirty two 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.

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-corruption 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 proper

jobs. 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

special for 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, gina's a big one.

-- 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, or John Oliver,

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 million jet. 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.