:00:00. > :00:09.Tonight, it's the This Week, All Star Family Fortunes.
:00:10. > :00:13.With us, the Letts family from Taxhaven, the Wallis family
:00:14. > :00:18.from Fleet Street, and the Haye family from Knockemdead.
:00:19. > :00:26.Our survey of newspaper editors found they're not very happy.
:00:27. > :00:29.Neil Wallis, former News of the World man, says it's time
:00:30. > :00:45.The BBC and their mates at Hacked Off wanted to stop the press poking
:00:46. > :00:46.around in people's lives. They got what they wanted and they are still
:00:47. > :00:49.not happy. Funny that. Quentin Letts thinks he's already
:00:50. > :00:59.won the luxury holiday to Panama. Family fortunes offshore, and at
:01:00. > :01:00.home party political fortunes, that has been the game at Westminster
:01:01. > :01:01.this week. And up for grabs, a night
:01:02. > :01:04.in the ring with former world heavyweight champ,
:01:05. > :01:15.David "The Hayemaker" Haye. I have taken a lot of punishment as
:01:16. > :01:16.a boxer, but nothing as punishing as this show tonight.
:01:17. > :01:28.Evenin' all and welcome to This Week, your Stairway to Political
:01:29. > :01:32.And you join us reeling from eyebrow-raising
:01:33. > :01:34.news that the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby's real
:01:35. > :01:37.father is not the man he thought he was.
:01:38. > :01:42.Some say there's no public interest, and it's a gross
:01:43. > :01:44.invasion of privacy, but after agreeing to take
:01:45. > :01:46.a DNA paternity test, it has now been confirmed
:01:47. > :01:51.that his biological father is, in fact, John Flasby Whittingdale,
:01:52. > :01:53.Secretary of State for Culture, Media, Sport and
:01:54. > :02:10.Maybe I've got that wrong. But I think I'm on firm ground when I tell
:02:11. > :02:14.you John Whittingdale briefly dated a woman who turned out to be a
:02:15. > :02:19.dominatrix sex worker, but the romance never flourished. She dumped
:02:20. > :02:20.him when she discovered he was a Tory MP and not the Archbishop of
:02:21. > :02:30.Canterbury. Speaking of dirty secrets, I'm
:02:31. > :02:33.joined on the sofa tonight by two Think of them as the Question
:02:34. > :02:36.Avoidance and Question Evasion I speak, of course, of #fourpercent
:02:37. > :02:40.Liz "Miserables" Kendall. And #sadmanontrain Michael
:02:41. > :02:45."Choo Choo" Portillo. Michael, your moment of the week. I
:02:46. > :02:49.think the issuing, at taxpayers' expense, of this miserable leaflet,
:02:50. > :02:57.which sets out the entirely tendentious one-sided propaganda
:02:58. > :02:59.case... Say what you think! It beggars belief that the taxpayer has
:03:00. > :03:04.to pay for the Government to express its opinion is in what is
:03:05. > :03:07.effectively an election. I hope the impact on people who receive this
:03:08. > :03:11.leaflet will be that they will be very angry their money has been
:03:12. > :03:16.wasted upon it and I hope it will cause them to vote against the
:03:17. > :03:21.Government's position. And I think it will upset Tories a great deal.
:03:22. > :03:24.And I think it is making David Cameron a highly divisive figure,
:03:25. > :03:32.such that even if he succeeds in this referendum, you wonder what his
:03:33. > :03:36.position will be. My moment of the week is the journalist Isabel
:03:37. > :03:41.Hardman, who I think you know, calling out sexism in the lobby when
:03:42. > :03:48.she was referred to as Totty by a Tory MP. She was right, she is
:03:49. > :03:53.gutsy, and I say good for her. She has not named the Tory MP but some
:03:54. > :03:58.people think they know who it is. She has kept her source is quiet but
:03:59. > :04:01.she says this is the 21st-century and we are not putting up with that
:04:02. > :04:03.language any longer, and I am very pleased she did.
:04:04. > :04:05.Now, earlier this week the BBC revealed details
:04:06. > :04:07.of John Flasby Whittingdale's private life, and a previous
:04:08. > :04:10.relationship the Culture Secretary had with a woman he discovered
:04:11. > :04:18.But if you wanted to know which celebrity couple took out
:04:19. > :04:28.a super-injunction to suppress details of alleged infidelity,
:04:29. > :04:32.with a spot of olive oil wrestling on the side, you'd have
:04:33. > :04:47.to move to Scotland or the States to read about it.
:04:48. > :04:51.I am told Michael is trying to work out how to include olive oil in one
:04:52. > :04:52.of his training documentaries. So after phone hacking
:04:53. > :04:55.and the Leveson Inquiry, has the pendulum swung
:04:56. > :04:58.back too far on privacy? Here's tabloid poster boy
:04:59. > :05:00.Neil Wallis, formerly of The People, The Sun and News of the World,
:05:01. > :05:19.with his take of the week. It's been a week of conspiracy,
:05:20. > :05:22.smear, counter smears, So I've come for a bacon sarnie
:05:23. > :05:30.and a cuppa to calm down. But you know what, it's not often
:05:31. > :05:33.I can say this. It's not been the gutter press that
:05:34. > :05:35.has been responsible for trampling their way
:05:36. > :05:37.through the private lives You know what, "single man has sex
:05:38. > :05:57.with single woman" doesn't It's true, 20 years ago
:05:58. > :06:02.we would have run a version But you wanted Leveson,
:06:03. > :06:06.and you got it. And now you have to live
:06:07. > :06:13.with the consequences. But what's happened this
:06:14. > :06:16.week has been like Alice The BBC, for decades, has set itself
:06:17. > :06:22.up as the vanguard of privacy, railing against these
:06:23. > :06:30.nasty, intrusive tabloids. But now, this week, you have the BBC
:06:31. > :06:40.teaming up with Hacked Off and some nut job conspiracy theorist website,
:06:41. > :06:45.to attack the press for not printing a non-story about someone most
:06:46. > :06:51.people have never even heard of. Of course, the issue of privacy
:06:52. > :07:01.and public interest And of course, all media
:07:02. > :07:08.are beholden at all times But the suggestion that there
:07:09. > :07:12.is a parallel between this story and the privacy super
:07:13. > :07:18.injunction is ridiculous. It's simply crazy that
:07:19. > :07:20.in the post-Levenson world it should be acceptable that a famous couple
:07:21. > :07:23.could use their glamorous lifestyle and their children
:07:24. > :07:28.as a lucrative marketing tool, and then use their ridiculous wealth
:07:29. > :07:32.to hire lawyers to persuade judges to gag the rest of us from knowing
:07:33. > :07:38.the truth about them. The BBC and their mates
:07:39. > :07:44.at Hacked Off said they wanted to stop the press poking around
:07:45. > :07:47.in other people's lives. From the Queen's Head cafe
:07:48. > :08:00.in Vauxhall to thumbing through our own greasy little
:08:01. > :08:15.This Week menu, Welcome to the programme. The
:08:16. > :08:23.minister and the dominatrix, you would have pub -- published that in
:08:24. > :08:29.a flash. 20 years ago, yes. Ten? I am not sure. The mood started to
:08:30. > :08:36.change even before Leveson. Is it right that the mood has changed?
:08:37. > :08:43.Yes, it has. Why do you think the newspapers that had the story did
:08:44. > :08:47.not publish? Two reasons. First, and incidentally what is important is
:08:48. > :08:51.that they did not all have this story together, they had it
:08:52. > :08:57.sequentially. Why didn't they publish? They thought, who knows
:08:58. > :09:01.this guy? And essentially, because it was long before he became a
:09:02. > :09:05.minister. Single man dates single woman. That is it. What is the story
:09:06. > :09:12.there? It is absolutely woman. That is it. What is the story
:09:13. > :09:18.the head of a select committee, a significant select committee. But
:09:19. > :09:19.the bottom line, the media are in the business of telling
:09:20. > :09:24.the bottom line, the media are in things that are interesting about
:09:25. > :09:28.people they are interested in. Even today, I suspect, if you put John
:09:29. > :09:34.Whittingdale's picture in front of 100 people, 99.9 of them even now
:09:35. > :09:39.would not know who he was. You managed to bash the BBC and every
:09:40. > :09:40.second sentence, which is fair enough, but surely there was some
:09:41. > :09:44.public enough, but surely there was some
:09:45. > :09:48.newspapers, which fall under this minister's dream it, had an
:09:49. > :09:53.embarrassing story about him. It was not embarrassing because they
:09:54. > :09:55.embarrassing story about him. It was weren't interested. He said it was
:09:56. > :10:00.embarrassing. It was embarrassing to weren't interested. He said it was
:10:01. > :10:03.newspapers looked at a weren't interested. He said it was
:10:04. > :10:07.decided it was not interesting is not a hold over him. This is not
:10:08. > :10:12.some vast conspiracy. I never used some vast conspiracy. I never used
:10:13. > :10:15.the word conspiracy. I am simply suggesting maybe it was in the
:10:16. > :10:17.public interest that people knew that this minister, with newspapers
:10:18. > :10:24.in his remix, had a story they that this minister, with newspapers
:10:25. > :10:32.he would have preferred would not come out. -- his remix. This was
:10:33. > :10:36.presented as a great conspiracy by national newspapers collectively not
:10:37. > :10:41.to publish the story so they could have a hold over the Minister. There
:10:42. > :10:45.is not, apart from Hacked Off and BBC Newsnight, there is not a shred
:10:46. > :10:53.of evidence there is any truth in that. Were the newspapers right to
:10:54. > :10:58.not publish the story? I think they were right not to publish it. John
:10:59. > :11:04.Whittingdale is a single man and what he does in his private life is
:11:05. > :11:07.his business. My concern is more why the Prime Minister and John
:11:08. > :11:11.Whittingdale have not fulfilled their commitment to the victims of
:11:12. > :11:16.phone hacking, the public and indeed fulfilled the will of the House of
:11:17. > :11:22.Commons on the measures there. The world has moved on from them. Were
:11:23. > :11:26.the newspapers right not to publish? I want to answer this way, I think
:11:27. > :11:30.the story is not particularly damaging to John Whittingdale so you
:11:31. > :11:35.can't regard it as a sort of Damocles. That said, I think it is
:11:36. > :11:41.unlucky for John Whittingdale that the story was not published, because
:11:42. > :11:45.since it was not, it puts him in the position of being suspected of
:11:46. > :11:48.having a conflict of interest. I think the story was not actually
:11:49. > :11:53.damaging and so that is not particularly logical, but I think it
:11:54. > :11:58.puts him in that unfortunate position. And by the way, I don't
:11:59. > :12:04.often defend the BBC, but I think the BBC is right to say it raises
:12:05. > :12:10.that question. You think the BBC was right to broadcast the story it did?
:12:11. > :12:14.Yes. Not because it wished to invade his privacy, but because it wished
:12:15. > :12:19.to it raise the question of whether the Minister had a conflict of
:12:20. > :12:25.interest. This is an issue of scale. This was not a story that simply
:12:26. > :12:29.appeared on BBC Newsnight. This was a huge story on the today programme,
:12:30. > :12:36.which we know sets the agenda for the day. The follow-up to the
:12:37. > :12:42.Newsnight story. It was the lead on the BBC News website. I was asked on
:12:43. > :12:47.to just about every major BBC News outlet, the today programme, five
:12:48. > :12:54.live, BBC News, even Victoria Derbyshire. They went mad for it.
:12:55. > :12:57.May I make one other point. You were saying before that there is no point
:12:58. > :13:01.putting anything about John Whittingdale because no one had
:13:02. > :13:05.heard of him. There was a man of whom literally no one had heard
:13:06. > :13:09.whatsoever who was absolutely pushed all over the tabloid newspapers. He
:13:10. > :13:13.was a member of the House of Lords. You could say he was a married man,
:13:14. > :13:18.as though that made all the difference, but I am not sure it
:13:19. > :13:22.does. But I simply do not believe your proposition that the tabloids
:13:23. > :13:25.have moved on, that they have decided that now if something is
:13:26. > :13:35.just a private matter for people's private lives... Do you think the
:13:36. > :13:38.BBC was right to do the story? I understand what Michael is saying
:13:39. > :13:41.about raising the question of whether the newspapers held this
:13:42. > :13:46.story back either because they thought it was not a story, or
:13:47. > :13:49.because they knew he was favourable to them because he has always been
:13:50. > :13:53.on the record as being anti-Levenson. The truth is we will
:13:54. > :13:57.never know the answer to that. But the real issue, if I can come back
:13:58. > :14:01.to it, is that there have been commitments from the Prime Minister
:14:02. > :14:04.about implementing Leveson, and the will of the House of Commons has
:14:05. > :14:08.been that we have passed legislation to say there should be strong
:14:09. > :14:12.incentives for newspapers to sign up to an independent Leveson -
:14:13. > :14:19.compliant body, and those that don't could face exemplary damages. The
:14:20. > :14:23.Government is walking away from that and I would suggest because it does
:14:24. > :14:27.not want to do it, not because of any story on John Whittingdale. But
:14:28. > :14:33.that is the will of the house. To change their position, they need to
:14:34. > :14:38.come back and do it. They are not going to do it if they don't want
:14:39. > :14:41.to. I would like the Prime Minister to explain to victims of phone
:14:42. > :14:44.hacking and the public and come to the House of Commons and explain why
:14:45. > :14:48.he is not doing what he said he would do.
:14:49. > :14:54.If it's not in the public interest to publish this story, why are the
:14:55. > :15:00.tabloids gagging to publish the story about the celebrity couple?
:15:01. > :15:06.You are talking about bananas and cucumbers, what you have on the
:15:07. > :15:10.celebrity threesome story is a world famous couple who've used their
:15:11. > :15:18.family status, who've paraded their children, used it as a marketing
:15:19. > :15:22.ploy, then using their vast wealth to basically hire expensive lawyers
:15:23. > :15:30.to try to gag the rest of the world from seeing it. Sure, but that's not
:15:31. > :15:35.the tabloids stopping this, they'll sell a lot more newspapers than the
:15:36. > :15:41.story on John whiting gale. There is an element of that. A big element.
:15:42. > :15:47.But the issue of how you gag a story like that which I would argue is
:15:48. > :15:52.completely in the public interest. Why is their private life in the
:15:53. > :15:59.public interest? Hypocrisy. He's saying putting a different picture
:16:00. > :16:06.ahead of what the reality is. But... If you had been a famous MP
:16:07. > :16:11.campaigning against abortion, but that you had had last year an
:16:12. > :16:17.abortion, would that not be in the public interest? Yes, it would, but
:16:18. > :16:22.what you are saying, from what I understand it, is that however they
:16:23. > :16:29.may behave in their pill vat life, they may have their private life
:16:30. > :16:34.too. I don't know who the celebrity couple is. You must be the only
:16:35. > :16:40.one... I do understand though that in the case of a legislator who is
:16:41. > :16:45.advocating a public policy... That's completely different. I don't know I
:16:46. > :16:50.don't understand why, because these people are famous, their public
:16:51. > :16:55.lives are up for grabs. It's about hypocrisy. I But why is it in the
:16:56. > :17:00.public interest? What is hypocritical? Because when they have
:17:01. > :17:07.their children, it was almost like the birth of a Royal Prince. It
:17:08. > :17:13.was... What has that got to do with what they do in their bedroom? I'm
:17:14. > :17:20.afraid this is bananas and cucumbers, you have a view on this
:17:21. > :17:24.and we have another. Is Labour right to call for John Whittingdale to be
:17:25. > :17:28.removed from new newspaper and regulation because, now this story's
:17:29. > :17:33.out, the newspapers could hardly influence themth him if there's any
:17:34. > :17:40.more? The focus should be on more on asking him to fulfil the will of the
:17:41. > :17:45.House in him doing what he said he would do for the newspaper toes
:17:46. > :17:51.comply with Leveson. So you are saying the strong incentive is, if
:17:52. > :17:55.they don't sign up under the Leveson plan, even if they don't want a
:17:56. > :18:00.court case, they would have to sign up. Come back to the House and
:18:01. > :18:08.explain to MPs... The Government's position... By the way, accusations
:18:09. > :18:14.made against the BBC is that the BBC done this against John whiting gale
:18:15. > :18:21.dale is because they are in a tussle with him over the licencify. It's
:18:22. > :18:28.prosecution it is rows. You want to get him recaused if giving any sort
:18:29. > :18:33.of influence on that decision -- licence fee. My understanding is
:18:34. > :18:35.that the licence fee was set up by the Chancellor anyway. Thank you
:18:36. > :18:39.very much. Now, it's late - Corbyn
:18:40. > :18:41.speech on Europe late. And if you want further proof, take
:18:42. > :18:47.a look who's waiting in the wings. Former heavyweight champion of the
:18:48. > :18:50.world David Haye is here, and Liz certainly
:18:51. > :18:51.fancies her chances. And if you can't hold back,
:18:52. > :18:56.why don't you come out swinging and Gordon Brown's Intergalactic
:18:57. > :19:03.Chat Bot. Now, when Boy George
:19:04. > :19:07.cut the top rate he was asked at the time
:19:08. > :19:14.whether he would personally benefit, I'm not personally
:19:15. > :19:22.affected," he told the BBC. Well, now we know he has,
:19:23. > :19:24.in fact, been benefiting from his own tax cut,
:19:25. > :19:27.after Gideon was forced to publish his tax return this
:19:28. > :19:29.week, following the lead of the Prime Minister
:19:30. > :19:31.and the Panama Papers leak. Although he only published his most
:19:32. > :19:34.recent return, so we have no idea whether or how much he stood
:19:35. > :19:37.to gain in previous years. Maybe it doesn't matter
:19:38. > :19:39.to you, maybe it does. Which is exactly how we feel about
:19:40. > :19:42.the Daily Mail's Quentin Letts. Here's his tax-tastic offshore
:19:43. > :19:51.round-up of the political week. Nothing irregular or criminal,
:19:52. > :19:58.or morally dubious. Just a quick inventory
:19:59. > :20:08.of This Week's offshore assets. Between you and me, if the costume
:20:09. > :20:12.budget is anything to go by I'm not sure there will be much
:20:13. > :20:17.in the vaults here at This Week's But everything has
:20:18. > :20:22.to be accounted for. And accounting for investments
:20:23. > :20:25.is what David Cameron had to do The Prime Minister had to fess up
:20:26. > :20:31.that he had profited While his finances were all legit,
:20:32. > :20:36.the leaked Panama Papers raised issues of tax
:20:37. > :20:39.transparency and regulation. The publication of a Prime
:20:40. > :20:48.Minister's tax information in this way is unprecedented, but I think
:20:49. > :20:52.it's the right thing to do. But let me be clear,
:20:53. > :20:56.I am not suggesting that this The Chancellor has today published
:20:57. > :21:00.information on his tax return, in a similar way
:21:01. > :21:07.to the Shadow Chancellor This begs the question of how far
:21:08. > :21:12.the publication of tax With all this stuff about tax
:21:13. > :21:17.havens, Labour ancient He was duly red-carded
:21:18. > :21:25.by the Speaker. I know, I know what
:21:26. > :21:29.you're saying to me. This man has done more to divide
:21:30. > :21:37.this nation than anybody else. I order the honourable member
:21:38. > :21:49.to withdraw immediately from the House
:21:50. > :21:52.for the remainder of Oh, I say!
:21:53. > :22:14.from the Conservative's man May I support the Prime Minister
:22:15. > :22:20.in fending off those who are attacking him, particularly
:22:21. > :22:23.in thinking of this place, because if he doesn't,
:22:24. > :22:27.we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low
:22:28. > :22:29.achievers who hate enterprise, hate people who look
:22:30. > :22:33.after their own family, and who know absolutely nothing
:22:34. > :22:36.about the outside world? With politicians' tax
:22:37. > :22:39.returns being published, the Prime Minister had a pop
:22:40. > :22:41.at Jeremy Corbyn, I'm glad he wants to get
:22:42. > :22:45.onto our responsibilities I thought his tax return
:22:46. > :22:51.was a metaphor for Labour policy. It was late, it was chaotic,
:22:52. > :22:55.it was inaccurate, it was uncosted. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful
:22:56. > :23:00.to the Prime Minister for drawing attention to my own tax return,
:23:01. > :23:06.there, warts and all. The warts being my handwriting,
:23:07. > :23:09."all" being my generous I actually paid more tax than some
:23:10. > :23:13.companies owned by people Labour is worried that
:23:14. > :23:25.steel-maker Tata wants to leave The question of nationalisation
:23:26. > :23:32.is buzzing around Westminster and the Business Secretary hinted
:23:33. > :23:34.that the Government was not ruling out some
:23:35. > :23:37.form of intervention. The formal sales
:23:38. > :23:40.process begins today. I've been in contact with potential
:23:41. > :23:42.buyers, making clear that the Government
:23:43. > :23:45.stands ready to help. This includes looking
:23:46. > :23:47.at the possibility of co-investing I welcome the long overdue admission
:23:48. > :23:53.from this Government that it is their duty to help find
:23:54. > :23:56.a future for UK steel-making. I just hope it isn't a case
:23:57. > :24:01.of too little, too late. Former Foreign Secretary David
:24:02. > :24:07.Miliband was in town this week, shoring up support for the vote
:24:08. > :24:10.to stay in Europe campaign. And finally, posties up and down
:24:11. > :24:14.the land have been delivering a controversial EU referendum
:24:15. > :24:16.leaflet, promoting a vote This vexed the Brexiteers,
:24:17. > :24:27.who said public money was being used to push
:24:28. > :24:30.one side of the debate. At PMQs, David Cameron
:24:31. > :24:33.was reminded of strong feelings Have we withdrawn from the free
:24:34. > :24:39.movement of people, or is that The nation has been waiting
:24:40. > :24:46.for Jeremy Corbyn to lay out his deck chairs on the EU,
:24:47. > :24:52.and finally we've learned Not rest and recuperation,
:24:53. > :25:01.but remain and reform. There is a strong socialist case
:25:02. > :25:07.for staying in the European Union, just as there is also a powerful
:25:08. > :25:13.socialist case for reform That's why we need a Labour
:25:14. > :25:24.government, to stand up at the European level for industries
:25:25. > :25:26.and communities in Britain, to back public ownership
:25:27. > :25:28.and public services, to protect and extend workers'
:25:29. > :25:33.rights, and to work with our allies to make both Britain and Europe work
:25:34. > :25:37.better for working people. There's been the offshore tax hoo-ha
:25:38. > :25:43.and then the row For some, that's been
:25:44. > :25:47.too much secrecy. Now, how about that
:25:48. > :26:07.This Week inventory? Quentin Letts locked
:26:08. > :26:12.inside the high Security vault in Leadenhall Street's Revolution
:26:13. > :26:26.Bar. Michael, the Panama papers quickly
:26:27. > :26:30.narrowed down in this country to a story about the Prime Minister and
:26:31. > :26:35.the Prime Minister's late father. Did either of them do anything
:26:36. > :26:39.wrong? Certainly nothing's been proven wrong that either one of them
:26:40. > :26:45.did. I think it's a kind of political things. I'm quite a highly
:26:46. > :26:51.paid person and yet I've never had any dealings with any off shore
:26:52. > :26:56.investmentstrusts so I deduce from that that those who do have contacts
:26:57. > :27:03.with a very tiny minority of the population indeed so as it were the
:27:04. > :27:06.political sin is to be associated with something incomprehensible from
:27:07. > :27:12.the mass population. Did either of them do anything wrong? Not by the
:27:13. > :27:15.letter of the law but I would agree with Michael, the Conservatives'
:27:16. > :27:20.political strategy has been to try to detoxify the party, move to the
:27:21. > :27:28.centre say they're a compassionate one-nation. Cameron's succeeded on
:27:29. > :27:36.issues like gay marriage but not on economic issues. They have done good
:27:37. > :27:43.things around raising the minimum wage, far outweighed by the cuts to
:27:44. > :27:49.the minimum wage. Few at the top do well but get fewer breaks, whether
:27:50. > :27:57.it's on capital gains tax or inheritance tax. It blows a hole
:27:58. > :28:02.through the central Seattly. Posh, wealthy, privileged and so on. As
:28:03. > :28:08.long as off shore assets are declared by required by the law, and
:28:09. > :28:16.we live in a globalised world, what's wrong with having them, MPs'
:28:17. > :28:21.pension find is offshore, the Guardian has offshore... What is The
:28:22. > :28:26.Real Story here about Panama that's got lost in Cameron and his father
:28:27. > :28:32.and about MPs publishing their tax returns. It's the extremely wealthy
:28:33. > :28:42.individuals trying to hide their money to try to avoid paying taxes.
:28:43. > :28:50.And everyone from Assad, Mugabe and Putin trying to avoid that. That is
:28:51. > :28:58.very interesting. Isn't it the case that the Panama papers raise issues
:28:59. > :29:03.about taxes. Sometimes Government themselves using these things to
:29:04. > :29:08.hide it. Maybe the parochial concerns about tax returns, the
:29:09. > :29:10.Prime Minister's father, have dedelected from the much bigger
:29:11. > :29:20.issues? Yes. It is interesting because Putin
:29:21. > :29:26.is facing no scrutiny whatsoever because the press is not free. I
:29:27. > :29:30.agree it has been a diversion, and the greater diversion was into
:29:31. > :29:36.inheritance tax. The legislation is clear on inheritance tax. It has set
:29:37. > :29:39.out all the ways in which you can make it a voluntary tax. If you are
:29:40. > :29:44.willing to give away wealth during your lifetime and are lucky enough
:29:45. > :29:48.to live seven-year is, you can effectively not pay inheritance tax.
:29:49. > :29:52.It is not dodgy, it is set out in statute. And it was in place when
:29:53. > :29:58.Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
:29:59. > :30:04.I take your point that what is done is done in this country, so was Mr
:30:05. > :30:09.Cameron right to publish his tax return? I think he had to in the
:30:10. > :30:13.end. But that does not deal with the big question. Cameron has made a
:30:14. > :30:16.small step forward by getting agreements among some of our
:30:17. > :30:20.territories that they will compile this register of beneficiary
:30:21. > :30:28.ownership, but it doesn't go far enough. We don't know whether anyone
:30:29. > :30:31.other than UK authorities can scrutinise those registers. There
:30:32. > :30:36.are increasing OECD agreements coming into place, and there are
:30:37. > :30:43.already EU agreements. Since the crash in 2008, there has been
:30:44. > :30:46.pressure on governments to do more. But they are not public so you have
:30:47. > :30:52.to know there is a problem to ask. The only way to deal with it is to
:30:53. > :30:55.make them public. There will be automatic exchange of information.
:30:56. > :31:00.Not public, but automatic between jurisdictions, and that will make a
:31:01. > :31:05.difference. It will, but I would like to see them public, to make
:31:06. > :31:07.sure that authorities in other countries can scrutinise what is
:31:08. > :31:12.happening in our territories. There is more we can do, and the
:31:13. > :31:18.distraction about MPs tax returns has taken our eye off the real
:31:19. > :31:22.question. Maybe it has been a distraction because surely by
:31:23. > :31:26.definition tax returns only tell voters how public figures are
:31:27. > :31:32.complying. If they are not complying, it will not be in the tax
:31:33. > :31:36.return. I certainly think there are enough disincentives to become a
:31:37. > :31:41.member of Parliament. If you took drugs when you were 16, had a gay
:31:42. > :31:46.relationship at 17, whatever... And now you have to publish your tax
:31:47. > :31:51.return as well. I know Alan Duncan made his point in a clumsy way in
:31:52. > :31:56.the House of Commons... In an obnoxious way. I was massively upset
:31:57. > :32:02.by it, shocked, to be honest. I don't know why! If it becomes the
:32:03. > :32:06.norm that MPs have to publish tax returns, we will have even fewer
:32:07. > :32:09.people stepping forward. I must say, I find one of the great joys of not
:32:10. > :32:14.being in the House of Commons is that I do not have to answer
:32:15. > :32:15.questions about my private income. Do you buy the
:32:16. > :32:19.questions about my private income. loves the European Union? He did not
:32:20. > :32:23.say that. I thought he loves the European Union? He did not
:32:24. > :32:25.honest. You might be surprised to hear me say this but I think he
:32:26. > :32:30.probably hear me say this but I think he
:32:31. > :32:32.a lot of people, which is sceptical. It needs to change, but on balance,
:32:33. > :32:38.stay in. I think that is It needs to change, but on balance,
:32:39. > :32:43.right. The less glorious putting that is that we are unhappy
:32:44. > :32:47.being in it and too frightened to leave. If that is the best that can
:32:48. > :32:49.be said for it, it is a hopeless situation. I do not know why Jeremy
:32:50. > :32:55.Corbyn is under such scrutiny. I situation. I do not know why Jeremy
:32:56. > :32:58.don't believe Jeremy Corbyn is any more euro enthusiastic than Jeremy
:32:59. > :33:05.Corbyn. There is a final issue to address. It is clear that a majority
:33:06. > :33:12.of Conservative voters will probably vote to leave. It could be 55-45. So
:33:13. > :33:12.of Conservative voters will probably how are you going to get this
:33:13. > :33:16.Labour, Mr Cameron needs how are you going to get this
:33:17. > :33:20.vote to win. This was an important speech. Labour voters and supporters
:33:21. > :33:24.needed to hear the Labour leader say speech. Labour voters and supporters
:33:25. > :33:29.this because all they have heard so far is a Tory leader, and they are
:33:30. > :33:35.relying on us to get the vote out. He has said it more than two months
:33:36. > :33:39.before polling day. And he will say it again. I doubt he will. I think
:33:40. > :33:45.he feels he has done what he had to do. Anything two months before
:33:46. > :33:48.polling day is irrelevant. Who remembers Iain Duncan Smith? It is
:33:49. > :33:54.completely irrelevant and I don't think there will be any great effort
:33:55. > :33:59.to turn out the Labour vote. Do you think he will campaign, do lots of
:34:00. > :34:06.rallies? I am an East Midlands European champion and I am busting a
:34:07. > :34:13.gut to get the Labour vote out. Then I am sign the more frightened than I
:34:14. > :34:16.was! -- I am slightly more frightened than I was.
:34:17. > :34:25.The second rule of This Week is, you do not talk about This Week.
:34:26. > :34:28.And the third rule of This Week is, if I yell, "Stop",
:34:29. > :34:33.which I'm told happens quite a lot these days,
:34:34. > :34:35.then This Week is over, we roll the credits,
:34:36. > :34:39.to Lou Lou's to lick our wounds and sip a Blue Nun cocktail.
:34:40. > :34:50.And that's why we're putting Fight Club in this week's Spotlight.
:34:51. > :34:52.British boxer Anthony Joshua isn't about to let his guard down.
:34:53. > :34:55.No sooner had he won a world heavyweight title than The Haymaker
:34:56. > :35:02.Former number one David Haye says he's on a comeback.
:35:03. > :35:06.So why do some people love the fight so much that they just can't avoid
:35:07. > :35:12.Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing
:35:13. > :35:17.Forum for democratic debate, or bare-knuckle bearpit?
:35:18. > :35:20.David Cameron pledged to put an end to Punch and Judy politics
:35:21. > :35:25.But doesn't he live for the fight, too?
:35:26. > :35:27.This week has certainly been a bruising one
:35:28. > :35:33.I know that I should have handled this better.
:35:34. > :35:35.And how does the Prime Minister's new sparring partner deal
:35:36. > :35:39.Jeremy Corbyn might have called for a kinder politics,
:35:40. > :35:43.but maybe you have to beat your rivals at their own game.
:35:44. > :35:46.I don't do interviews under any circumstances.
:35:47. > :35:56.Liz could have been a contender for Labour leader until she got
:35:57. > :36:02.And the man in the blue corner certainly knows how she feels.
:36:03. > :36:04.So whether your sport is boxing or politics,
:36:05. > :36:15.how do you fight on, and when do you throw in the towel?
:36:16. > :36:24.David Haye is with us now, welcome to the programme. Do you like being
:36:25. > :36:31.in a fight? Tyler it. It sounds crazy and a lot of people probably
:36:32. > :36:35.could not relate to it, but I feel at my most comfortable in the heat
:36:36. > :36:40.of battle, when I am in there with somebody and fighting. I can't hear
:36:41. > :36:46.anybody else, I am just in the zone that no other walk of life can get
:36:47. > :36:52.me into. I am fortunate we live in a society where I am allowed to do it.
:36:53. > :36:59.It is a place that I believe I am truly genetically designed to do
:37:00. > :37:03.that. To be in there, competing. But you retired in 2012 and you said
:37:04. > :37:10.that being hit in the face for 20 years was long enough. I had a plan
:37:11. > :37:15.from when I was a kid that I would retire before I was 31. I believed
:37:16. > :37:22.competing for 20 years, it's a long time. But I believed I could achieve
:37:23. > :37:27.what I wanted in 20-year is. I was the undisputed cruiserweight champ
:37:28. > :37:31.of the world. No other British fighter had ever done that before. I
:37:32. > :37:33.then went up to heavyweight and won the heavyweight title, beating the
:37:34. > :37:43.biggest ever heavyweight champion in history. Then I went to unify the
:37:44. > :37:50.titles against Vladimir Klitschko. I went to do that just before my 31st
:37:51. > :37:54.birthday and I lost on points. So I did not quite achieve it. I wanted
:37:55. > :37:59.that perfection in my career. If I had that I would have been able to
:38:00. > :38:02.retire. I had been saying I would retire since I was ten so I thought
:38:03. > :38:07.I would do so anyway. Sitting at home, on a beach somewhere going,
:38:08. > :38:13.something is not right, there is still work to do. A number of boxes
:38:14. > :38:18.outside the ring, including you, gentle, softly spoken. Is it easy to
:38:19. > :38:27.go from that to the aggression required to win? It is harder being
:38:28. > :38:34.here now, being a healthy member of society. That is the hard part.
:38:35. > :38:39.Michael has found that, too. He is still working on it. Believe it or
:38:40. > :38:46.not, the easiest thing for me is once I'm in the ring, there is a
:38:47. > :38:53.referee there, me and my opponent. I do not see the referee. I know he is
:38:54. > :38:57.there, but I am just in this own. Not many people can get it because
:38:58. > :39:02.not many people have been there, but it is a special place. But now, even
:39:03. > :39:05.before you get in the ring you are expected to do this face-off, stare
:39:06. > :39:12.at each other and look angry and serious and threatening. Is that a
:39:13. > :39:17.mind game, or just show business? It is a bit of show business.
:39:18. > :39:21.Unfortunately, I have been in a situation where someone got too
:39:22. > :39:27.close and it ended up kicking off and I had a punch-up in a press
:39:28. > :39:32.conference. In front of 200 members of the press. Terrible. Everyone
:39:33. > :39:39.said it was a disgrace, terrible, but after that it was one of the
:39:40. > :39:44.biggest grossing fights. That was the best possible promotion for a
:39:45. > :39:48.boxing match, strangely. All of the writers who said it was disgusting
:39:49. > :39:52.they were there in the front row saying, what a great fight, much
:39:53. > :40:02.anticipated. It was a genuine grudge match. Politics is pretty
:40:03. > :40:08.adversarial, isn't it? There is a lot of fighting talk. Even the
:40:09. > :40:18.metaphors. We talk about who wins PMQs. The big beast, all of that.
:40:19. > :40:21.Who wins, the upper hand... I have always found it fascinating about
:40:22. > :40:29.the chamber that it is really exposing. Under pressure, people
:40:30. > :40:35.cannot hide who they are. It is both a fight, but it is also theatre, in
:40:36. > :40:40.the real sense that people are very exposed and their real tendency
:40:41. > :40:44.comes out. I think the number of people really stimulated by the
:40:45. > :40:49.fight in politics are very few, and they get to the top. People like
:40:50. > :40:52.Tony Blair and David Cameron are exceptionally good, really
:40:53. > :40:58.stimulated by it. And they triumphed because of that. When you were
:40:59. > :41:02.talking about being in the zone and loving it, you could say that about
:41:03. > :41:09.politicians. You are also saying that you are a rare beast. You are,
:41:10. > :41:14.I am sure, and so are they. When you gave up the political fight, and I
:41:15. > :41:17.know you have no thoughts of coming back, was there something in the
:41:18. > :41:23.back of your mind that said, this may just be for a while? Well, that
:41:24. > :41:27.is how it was because I was defeated and I had this idea of unfinished
:41:28. > :41:32.business, like what David has said. I came back because I had unfinished
:41:33. > :41:37.business. The second time I decided to leave, the first time I left
:41:38. > :41:43.voluntarily, that was it. No question whatsoever. But I am also
:41:44. > :41:47.absolutely sure that I lacked the aggression that David has described,
:41:48. > :41:51.and the aggression that David Cameron or Tony Blair or Margaret
:41:52. > :41:54.Thatcher displayed. Every day you have to get back on your feet,
:41:55. > :42:03.forget the insult and keep driving forward. Our country has a new world
:42:04. > :42:08.champion, Anthony Joshua. You want to fight him. I would love to. He
:42:09. > :42:13.did a great thing the other night, had an American champion come over
:42:14. > :42:18.and he dispatched him. This country is good at boxing. We are doing
:42:19. > :42:26.fantastic. We have 12 current world champions. Why is that? It might
:42:27. > :42:31.have been the spur of the Olympics. Maybe kids are seeing champions and
:42:32. > :42:35.believing they have a chance. Amateur kids believing that they can
:42:36. > :42:42.be there one day. It Israeli popular in my constituency. We have a couple
:42:43. > :42:49.of local gyms. -- it is really popular. My next fight is on the
:42:50. > :42:56.21st of May, fighting a Kosovan, 29 fights, never lost. He is going to
:42:57. > :42:59.get knocked out. I might need a sparring partner.
:43:00. > :43:01.That's your lot for tonight folks, but not for us.
:43:02. > :43:03.We're giving Lou Lou's a miss tonight and heading
:43:04. > :43:05.to Big Nick's Nightclub in what was formerly
:43:06. > :43:07.the People's Republic of Hackney and is now
:43:08. > :43:12.Not just tax-free Blue Nun, but I'm told Diane has been dancing
:43:13. > :43:22.of David Cameron, who this week turned up at the Remain Campaign
:43:23. > :43:25.phone bank and wished he hadn't, after he dialled the wrong
:43:26. > :43:46.We can debate my policies, argue about them, but my motivation has
:43:47. > :43:51.always been about that. My motive now, with no question in my mind, is
:43:52. > :43:52.that I am concerned that this Government that I want to succeed is
:43:53. > :43:58.not able to do the kind of things it Government that I want to succeed is
:43:59. > :43:59.should, because it has become too focused on narrowly getting the
:44:00. > :44:02.deficit down focused on narrowly getting the
:44:03. > :44:04.say where that should fall, other than simply on
:44:05. > :44:11.say where that should fall, other progressively can less afford
:44:12. > :44:15.say where that should fall, other have that fall on them. The more you
:44:16. > :44:20.can keep going on that keep going until June the 23rd. Many thanks for
:44:21. > :44:23.talking to us. All right, take care.