:00:15. > :00:18.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be
:00:19. > :00:29.Look at the clock- we are early! Before anybody starts to complain.
:00:30. > :00:31.With me are the executive director of the Huffington Post,
:00:32. > :00:33.James Martin, and the political correspondent for the
:00:34. > :00:40.I have to tell them when we get it right because they tell us when we
:00:41. > :00:41.get it wrong! The i's top story is more fall out
:00:42. > :00:47.from the Panama Papers summed by its headline,
:00:48. > :00:57."PM Faces Inquiry Over Shares The Guardian carries the same story
:00:58. > :01:02.with the headline, Cameron's trust problem.
:01:03. > :01:04.The Independent says UK officials were routinely ignored as they tried
:01:05. > :01:07.The Daily Telegraph, in an exclusive, says
:01:08. > :01:09.the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has discovered
:01:10. > :01:11.he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill's last
:01:12. > :01:13.private secretary after taking a DNA test.
:01:14. > :01:17.The Daily Mail claims that patients are paying up to 41 pence a minute
:01:18. > :01:19.to book GP appointments despite an NHS ban on premium phone
:01:20. > :01:22.The Times reports British weapons are secretly being sold
:01:23. > :01:33.The Express says 160,000 people have signed a petition in protest
:01:34. > :01:43.And the Mirror claims three members of England's 1966 World Cup winning
:01:44. > :01:53.As oppose you would expect on the Friday of the Panama Papers week,
:01:54. > :01:58.that is what we will be looking at. No skip tonight. The i says the
:01:59. > :02:05.Prime Minister faces enquirer in shares over offshore trust -- no
:02:06. > :02:09.surprises tonight. But a lot of papers have chosen not to lead with
:02:10. > :02:13.this tonight. What is that all about? We wondered whether there was
:02:14. > :02:25.Panama that geek and we had to actually scratch around a bit,
:02:26. > :02:28.didn't we, Rowena, to find it -- Panama fatigue. Certainly not the
:02:29. > :02:34.same prominence as the rest of the front pages and I wonder whether
:02:35. > :02:38.David Cameron's team number ten ands are doing any fist pump and thinking
:02:39. > :02:43.they have written this one out. From a journalistic point of view,
:02:44. > :02:49.Rowena, mode of work that has gone into this -- read in this one out.
:02:50. > :02:52.Digging around for months to find these revelations. Going it off the
:02:53. > :02:56.boil might be handy but from a journalistic point of view, quite
:02:57. > :03:00.depressing? It has been an extraordinary week of coverage from
:03:01. > :03:05.The Guardian and Hundred other organisations around the world that
:03:06. > :03:09.broke the story. It is a brief period of respite today for number
:03:10. > :03:13.ten because only the i and Guardian have led on it but I just do not
:03:14. > :03:16.think it is the end of the story by any means. Cameron will have to
:03:17. > :03:19.release his tax returns in the next couple of days. Downing Street has
:03:20. > :03:25.said as much. It will go back six years so they will probably have
:03:26. > :03:30.some interesting nuggets and there are still a lot of outstanding
:03:31. > :03:35.questions. What has changed. In 2012 David Cameron said he would come out
:03:36. > :03:38.and publish his tax return? There is this massive issue of confidential
:03:39. > :03:41.to the Hogan Nobuyuki he can just publish it and how will that happen?
:03:42. > :03:51.Will be leaked into the Sunday papers? -- confidentiality so how is
:03:52. > :03:55.it he can just. After saying there are all these confidentiality issues
:03:56. > :04:00.over releasing a tax return, now he can do it? I agree. I think at the
:04:01. > :04:04.time number ten were saying they were happy to publish, to think
:04:05. > :04:07.about doing it, if other senior politicians were doing it as well,
:04:08. > :04:13.and in fact the actual story about David Cameron's father, Ian Cameron,
:04:14. > :04:19.and his offshore investment fund, was written by the -- about by their
:04:20. > :04:22.Guardian in 2012 but Downing St shot that down by saying it was a private
:04:23. > :04:28.matter. The reason the story is gaining traction now is because of
:04:29. > :04:30.the global element to it. Other newspapers, other media
:04:31. > :04:35.organisations, everyone has been chasing it all week and the pressure
:04:36. > :04:38.on Cameron has just got too much. Publishing the tax returns is a way
:04:39. > :04:43.of trying to draw a line under it. The other point the i makes here is
:04:44. > :04:46.that the Prime Minister's personal approval ratings have fallen below
:04:47. > :04:52.Jeremy and's for the first time. How have they managed it this week?
:04:53. > :04:57.There is no suggestion there was any tax dodge going on, that this dollar
:04:58. > :05:03.denominated shares trading fund that his father held in Panama, it was
:05:04. > :05:07.not due to pay any tax in Panama because it is a non-tax jurisdiction
:05:08. > :05:10.and any tax due to be paid was paid by David Cameron back when he sold
:05:11. > :05:15.those shares... There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing, it is
:05:16. > :05:17.just about how it appears to the public? It is a really good point
:05:18. > :05:21.because potentially if number ten had handled this better we would not
:05:22. > :05:26.be speaking about it today anyway. It would not have lasted for the
:05:27. > :05:32.full five days but after four days of statements, or five days of four
:05:33. > :05:36.statements, I should say, then the fifth one, it looked like he was
:05:37. > :05:40.just calling these down and they were getting hit back over his head
:05:41. > :05:46.for six, and then he had four in the end that were not going to do the
:05:47. > :05:51.job for the lobby, where they -- bowling was just -- Cameron was just
:05:52. > :05:56.bowling them down. To quote him, he it said Mrs Cameron and the children
:05:57. > :06:00.will not benefit in future. That obviously opened the door, didn't
:06:01. > :06:03.it? Have they benefited in the past. How they thought they would get that
:06:04. > :06:08.past journalss without them thinking, hang on, that excludes
:06:09. > :06:12.everything before, you know, Cameron became prime. All of those
:06:13. > :06:18.statements, as they were sort of drip fed to us, they were all true?
:06:19. > :06:22.That is true and to an extent this has become a story about a public
:06:23. > :06:27.relations mess, but in a way I think Downing Street will be quite pleased
:06:28. > :06:31.about that, the fire and fury has turned on to the way they have
:06:32. > :06:38.handled it, and that distracts from the kind of underlying questions
:06:39. > :06:41.that there are around, you know, we are not saying anything illegal has
:06:42. > :06:47.been done by any means but morally David Cameron took that decision to
:06:48. > :06:50.invest in an offshore fund that was not paying tax in Britain. That is
:06:51. > :06:55.the root of the story. But when you sell them you pay tax where you are
:06:56. > :07:00.resident? Yes, but it is a choice you make. What do you do with your
:07:01. > :07:04.money? Let's look at the Guardian. Even if there is no wrongdoing,
:07:05. > :07:09.Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are now saying there is a trust issue
:07:10. > :07:13.and that is his problem. The statement to Parliament, new queries
:07:14. > :07:17.posed about offshore fund, Prime Minister accused of half-truths and
:07:18. > :07:23.misleading the public. It took five weeks and five -- sorry, five days,
:07:24. > :07:28.and as you say it would have been much simpler to just say, yes, and
:07:29. > :07:32.let's move on. Jeremy Corbyn seems to have taken the position that
:07:33. > :07:36.Number Ten are doing a great job messing it up by themselves. I am
:07:37. > :07:41.not going to say much at all, he is thinking. After the revelations last
:07:42. > :07:44.night, how long it took, for him to say he did actually hold a stake in
:07:45. > :07:47.this country, it took 12 hours for Jeremy Corbyn to come out and say
:07:48. > :07:55.anything at all. When he first came out this morning, he was very gruff,
:07:56. > :07:58.he pushed away journals's and who was simply trying to ask him a
:07:59. > :08:01.question you would have thought he would have been keen to answer given
:08:02. > :08:05.it was his chance to really stick the boot in the David Cameron. It
:08:06. > :08:09.eggs the question, who has had a good Panama crisis? -- it begs the
:08:10. > :08:12.question. Wonder whether Jeremy Corbyn, by not saying much at all,
:08:13. > :08:17.has put in southern stronger position than? The polls today were
:08:18. > :08:25.very bad for David Cameron and good for Jeremy Corbyn comparatively and
:08:26. > :08:29.it is a question of liking that person, rather than, you know, the
:08:30. > :08:33.question of confidence and leadership. I would be interested to
:08:34. > :08:36.see what the metrics are on, you know, whether it has damaged the
:08:37. > :08:42.view of David Cameron as a competent authority figure. That is true. It
:08:43. > :08:46.is not just about whether you like that person but about whether you
:08:47. > :08:51.trust them, and after five days of weasel words statements, it cannot
:08:52. > :08:57.have helped that. People who already may have had doing an issue with
:08:58. > :08:59.David Cameron and his supported tough background, anything he sees
:09:00. > :09:06.now is going to be seen as a cover-up exercise, isn't it? And it
:09:07. > :09:09.plays into the images to image the Conservatives have desperately been
:09:10. > :09:15.trying to shed for so long about being privileged -- please enter the
:09:16. > :09:22.image. And while Cameron is trying to lead the Remain campaign as we
:09:23. > :09:33.head towards the EU referendum, trying to fend off the Brexiteers as
:09:34. > :09:38.they are known. 160,000 people rejecting the pro-EU leaflet. Raises
:09:39. > :09:43.the question of whether anyone actually reads leaflets anywhere to
:09:44. > :09:47.back any mayor, Ken of a retro way of doing things. They must work.
:09:48. > :09:51.Political parties spend a huge of money on them so they must be
:09:52. > :09:54.something of study into them being incredibly effective but I imagine
:09:55. > :09:57.they will be lining a few recycling bins over the next week or so. I
:09:58. > :10:01.have just moved house and my recycling is a nightmare. I do not
:10:02. > :10:05.know which one to put this one end! And whether I will find it anyway,
:10:06. > :10:11.with the amount of leaflets through my door. Rowena, you were saying 34p
:10:12. > :10:17.for a leaflet? I think that is right. It still causes a huge amount
:10:18. > :10:20.of outrage and upset amongst the Brexit campaigners who are calling
:10:21. > :10:23.it a propaganda blitz by the Government and the Richard not be
:10:24. > :10:27.spending taxpayers' money, with different views on this issue, to
:10:28. > :10:34.put one side of the cross -- and that they should not be spending. In
:10:35. > :10:40.the Express story, 160,000 people have rejected the pro-EU leaflet.
:10:41. > :10:44.They are sending a 27 million. In total, so 160,000 people rejecting
:10:45. > :10:50.them, you know, it is not exactly a huge sum. Do we even know who this
:10:51. > :10:53.petition is by? Is it supposed to spark a debate in Parliament if it
:10:54. > :10:57.reaches over hundred thousand, on the parliamentary website? Samak I
:10:58. > :11:01.think so. There are calls for a fast track debate about it given the
:11:02. > :11:08.urgency of these leaflets going output is in -- yes, I think so. It
:11:09. > :11:13.is all part of the pressure building amongst the campaigns that want to
:11:14. > :11:18.leave the EU to try to get Cameron... The money is already
:11:19. > :11:24.spent now. Yes, nothing you can do. There is a campaign, isn't there, to
:11:25. > :11:27.get people to send them back to number ten, so one wonders whether
:11:28. > :11:35.the primer Minister's recycling bin will be extra full. Just a pause for
:11:36. > :11:41.a second, Duncan is asking why I am not wearing glasses tonight because
:11:42. > :11:46.I am the odd one out. Specs appeal! I could be. I am about the same size
:11:47. > :11:49.will do not see very well so I have my contact lenses in. Let's look at
:11:50. > :11:54.the Daily Mail. How GPs are cashing in on patient one calls. What are
:11:55. > :11:57.they doing? Interesting story. It is about whether GP practices are
:11:58. > :12:02.exploding a loophole in the law which lets people, if they want, pay
:12:03. > :12:04.a little extra and have their appointment fast tracked. If you do
:12:05. > :12:08.not want to pay, you can stay on hold for as long apparently as it
:12:09. > :12:11.takes for you to book that appointment, but if you want to get
:12:12. > :12:17.fast tracked, you can call one of these premium rate phone lines. If
:12:18. > :12:26.you spend ten minutes waiting or speaking to somebody on this premium
:12:27. > :12:29.rate phone line, this 0844 number, ten minutes would cost you around ?4
:12:30. > :12:33.and if it is a fast-track service one wonders whether a call would
:12:34. > :12:37.take ten minutes to begin with. You know, there is a bigger issue here,
:12:38. > :12:40.isn't there? Most GP practices are out of date in terms of
:12:41. > :12:44.appointments. You cannot just in most practices book something
:12:45. > :12:55.online, for a double. You cannot tweak your GP practice and say, do
:12:56. > :12:59.you have 1:30pm available? -- Tweet. But people still have that option
:13:00. > :13:01.perhaps being able to stay on hold. Or get the money? It seems
:13:02. > :13:06.outrageous to me. I think every body should have access to their GP
:13:07. > :13:11.within minutes and just collar number and get to the reception --
:13:12. > :13:14.who gets the money? And all these services are under a huge amount of
:13:15. > :13:19.financial pressure and this is a sign of it. Even if you can get
:13:20. > :13:22.through, they don't necessarily have an appointment for you for three
:13:23. > :13:25.weeks. That is potentially the bigger issue and not to bring it
:13:26. > :13:30.back to that leaflet, but the point was made on question Time, wasn't
:13:31. > :13:35.it, last night, that perhaps that ?9 million could have been better spent
:13:36. > :13:39.helping junior doctors, for example. I just think it create a two tier
:13:40. > :13:42.system where some people, and the other point is that some people
:13:43. > :13:46.might not even notice. You are feeling really unwell, you have a
:13:47. > :13:51.screaming child in the background with something or other and you call
:13:52. > :13:54.the first number on the website. Given the choice between streamline,
:13:55. > :13:59.fast tracking and not, most people will fast-track, even if they cannot
:14:00. > :14:03.quite hear the fine print being told to them in the background. The
:14:04. > :14:08.capital Times. British guns sold secretly to terrorists on Facebook.
:14:09. > :14:12.-- let's look at the Times. Rather an open way of doing it? I have not
:14:13. > :14:18.liked on my Facebook account anything to do with firearms in
:14:19. > :14:22.Libya, thankfully, but I think this fascinating for a number of reasons.
:14:23. > :14:26.Some of the guns for cell here, ex-World War II guns, they could
:14:27. > :14:30.have been left behind by British soldiers, after World War II. These
:14:31. > :14:34.are not exactly the sort of firearms you will necessarily start a war
:14:35. > :14:38.with. But if they still work they are still deadly? Absolutely and
:14:39. > :14:47.there is a serious price on these. Submachineguns at about ?500, that
:14:48. > :14:49.is serious money. But these handguns, that apparently date back
:14:50. > :14:57.to the Second World War, they were also discovered. There is not a
:14:58. > :15:01.price in pounds but something like 20 Libyan dinar. One wonders whether
:15:02. > :15:07.this is just a sign of The Times. For a lot of people Facebook is the
:15:08. > :15:09.Internet. Terrorists indicated on Facebook, should we be surprised
:15:10. > :15:13.people are selling firearms and Abbey National? It's the wider
:15:14. > :15:23.problem with dangerous weapons sold on Internet -- people are selling
:15:24. > :15:28.firearms there. Knives available on Amazon and that kind of thing, those
:15:29. > :15:32.questions? Forget about the laws on the UK being able to do anything.
:15:33. > :15:35.There is no my chance. If we cannot get our legal system to keep up with
:15:36. > :15:38.this pack... I think the Libyans have more on the plate than how to
:15:39. > :15:45.regulate this book. Think you are right. Should we move on. -- keep up
:15:46. > :15:51.with Facebook. This exclusive. My secret father, next to Justin Welby,
:15:52. > :15:56.the Archbishop of Canterbury. DNA tests reveals the Archbishop of
:15:57. > :16:02.Canterbury's astonishing past. His father, Rowena, was not the man he
:16:03. > :16:07.believed it was until very recently to be his father. It is not often
:16:08. > :16:13.there is a line on a story saying it is astonishing, with a story that
:16:14. > :16:17.really is astonishing. When we saw this weekend of scoffed, didn't we?
:16:18. > :16:22.Then when we read it with it it was really interesting. It is amazing.
:16:23. > :16:28.Charles Moore, best known as the biographer of irony stature, and he
:16:29. > :16:38.has been slipping away and found some evidence that he thought --
:16:39. > :16:44.best known as the biographer of Baroness Thatcher. He found that he
:16:45. > :16:49.served Downing Street during his retirement, so what the Telegraph
:16:50. > :16:53.did is go to Justin Welby and asking questions about his parentage and
:16:54. > :16:57.his responses were amazing. He said, let's clear this up, and he took a
:16:58. > :17:01.paternity test. Something from this that is truly incredible. You would
:17:02. > :17:05.expect somebody who just found out their father, and you know he still
:17:06. > :17:10.refers to his father as his father, that they might not exactly be
:17:11. > :17:14.terribly impressed by the whole thing but some of these quotes are
:17:15. > :17:19.amazing. He said, I was not in any way upset. I remain not upset. How
:17:20. > :17:23.could you not be upset? He is not your traditional Archbishop, you
:17:24. > :17:26.know, 11 years working in the oil industry, he comes from a different
:17:27. > :17:29.background, you know. He has had other things in his life that have
:17:30. > :17:35.cost him distress. For a double, he lost one of his children in 1983,
:17:36. > :17:39.for example. Perhaps this is not the biggest crisis Justin Welby has ever
:17:40. > :17:44.faced. We have a statement from the Archbishop which is really beautiful
:17:45. > :17:47.actually. If you get a chance to read it in its entirety it is
:17:48. > :17:51.certainly worth doing so. He says that it is only in the last month he
:17:52. > :17:56.discovered his biographical bat-mac biological father is not who he
:17:57. > :18:00.thought and he goes onto say that both of his parents had alcohol
:18:01. > :18:05.problems and that as a result his early life was messy -- his
:18:06. > :18:08.biological father. He said he's proud of the fact his mother has
:18:09. > :18:12.been free of alcohol for a long time and that as far as they were able
:18:13. > :18:15.his parents and very much his grandmother brought him up. He says,
:18:16. > :18:22.my own experience is typical of many people, to be the child in a with
:18:23. > :18:26.difficulties, with substance abuse and other things far too normal. He
:18:27. > :18:29.is very realistic about it and in recognising that, you know, this
:18:30. > :18:35.happens to a lot of people. Yes, this is not what we like to be
:18:36. > :18:39.speaking about tonight. We expected to be speaking about Ian Cameron,
:18:40. > :18:42.that father, but instead it is about the secret father of the Archbishop.
:18:43. > :18:46.Is there not an issue for the church here? Is there any church law here
:18:47. > :18:52.that potentially could... There might have been... Climax and
:18:53. > :18:58.fascinating detail. Lambeth Palace was given cause to check Canon Law
:18:59. > :19:02.-- there is some fascinating detail. Luckily, for Justin Welby, a
:19:03. > :19:11.little-known change in the law dating back to the 50 black means it
:19:12. > :19:16.saved his post. -- back to the 50s. He will not change his name. He is
:19:17. > :19:19.Justin Welby and as he said, I am just, servant of Jesus Christ.
:19:20. > :19:24.Nothing has changed as far as he's concerned. That is it for the
:19:25. > :19:29.Papers. An extraordinary story to finish. And Rowena, thank you both.
:19:30. > :19:33.-- Don't forget all the front pages are online on the BBC News website
:19:34. > :19:40.where you can read a detailed review of the papers.
:19:41. > :19:43.It's all there for you - 7 days a week at bb.co.uk/papers
:19:44. > :19:47.with each night's edition of The Papers being posted
:19:48. > :19:52.on the page shortly after we've finished.
:19:53. > :19:53.coming up next, some headlines for you, after the