Episode 15 Sunday Morning Live

On today's programme: The Prime Minister warns tax dodgers

career in television. Four scarlet berries on the tree.

career in television. Four scarlet letters and in the restaurants, and

they say, Good morning. Good morning. We are

me and that was you Good morning. Good morning. We are

looking forward to hearing from you. Make sure you get an touch through

Facebook and Twitter. Don't forget to use

the hashtag #bbcsml. Standard geographic

charges from landlines Texts will be charged

at your standard message rate. Email us at

[email protected]. And if you do get in touch, please

don't forget to include your name. Absolutely. Names are very

important. Owen Jones is a

journalist and author. Charlie Wolf is an American

radio talk show host Salma Yaqoob is an activist

and manager in an NHS And Mark Littlewood

is Director General of the Institute "You have a duty to

pay your tax and we're The words of the Prime Minister

at the Conservative Party Her comments were interpreted

by many as a coded warning to big US presidential candidate Donald

Trump, currently embroiled in a sexism row, causes further

controversy by saying paying as little tax as you can is smart.

It's certainly not illegal to avoid tax as long as you stick

to the letter of the law but is it morally justified?

Donald Trump says it is smart. I think it is. It is smart, legal,

ethical. It is one of the few things he is doing right. If you talk to

anyone here or in the States, Hillary Clinton has done it, as a

matter of fact. All he was doing in this case, is he has losses and he

was moving them into the future against future profits. He has still

got to be the same amount of tax but this benefit everybody in the sense

that we need people like Donald Trump and Richard Branson and other

entrepreneurs to take risk, and this allows them to take that risk. I can

hear you scoffing? Just laughing at the idea that we need Donald Trump!

There are two points about morality here. I am not a priest. We are

going through the worst cuts to public services for many

generations, just on the basis of not having enough money. And there

is one rule for some and one rule for everybody else. The local coffee

shop, they can't charge themselves for using their own logo and set it

against tax. They can't use lower tax jurisdictions. They can't

off-load losses from foreign entities onto their balance sheets.

They are not paying as much tax as big businesses. The whole point

about taxes it is progressive. Big businesses are partly driving some

of these businesses out of business because they are at a competitive

disadvantage. We have got large accountancy firms in this company

countries according to government, drawing up the tax laws, then they

tell their clients had to get around the taxes they have created. So it

is one rule for them and another for everyone else. One of the

interesting thing is that Donald Trump said is he knows the system,

he has played the system, and he wants to fix it and make it fair. I

think that is fair. Listen, I don't care so much about Donald Trump. You

are a big fan, Charlie! I'm just using this example. Insomuch as

putting losses against profits, nothing wrong with that, everybody

does it. I want to hear Mark's view as well, the views of the whole

panel. Isn't it good PR for businesses to be seen to be paying

tax? It might be good PR, in which case they should put their tax bill

against the PR line on their expenditure! Businesses do all sorts

of things about corporate and social responsibility. To Owen's point

about the system, we should be criticising the politicians here and

not businesses. In the UK we have a tax code that is 14,000 pages in

length. The only people who can get through the system are people with

clever lawyers and accountants. No single human being can understand

the whole rule book. By comparison, the rules of association football 20

pages in length that they are controversial enough! When you have

14,000 pages there are endless bizarre loophole and it is

impossible to know what the spirit the law is at that point. And of

course that helps the big corporate. I would like to Reza May to say, to

make it fairer and more straightforward, we will bring it

down to 14 pages and not 14,000. -- Theresa May. Is it immoral to take

advantage of those loopholes? I think virtually everybody does so. I

am a tax dodger. I buy duty-free cigarettes, I put money in a ISA and

I have a pension, for the tax bases, which is not good value for money.

Personal affairs, a few hundred quid here, a couple of grand here, to

minimise my tax bill, I feel no shame about that. Can I just address

the ISA misnomer. Tax avoidance goes against the spirit of the law. Yes,

it is. Can I finish? The point about an ISA, this is a government scheme

we are respected to take advantage of. It is government legislation.

Loopholes are things that the legislators did not intend to be

exploited. If somebody can work out the spirit and intention of 14,000

pages produced by politicians year after year... What I would like to

do is get your view. I think you make a really good point that we

should be firing up anger at the system. It is about the politicians.

It is all very well for Theresa May to go against the tax dodgers, but

her government has set up the rules to make it advantageous for those

with a lot of money, who can employ accountants who are enabling tax

dodging, and that is where the real scandal is and our economy is losing

out. We are losing far more in so-called loopholes than in benefit

fraud, and yet the whole political discourse has been on who is

benefiting from the system. I would say the big rich businesses are.

When we are talking about huge amounts of money, a minimum of ?25

billion per year, that is all of the spending cuts covered if people paid

the taxes that they should. What about the role of business when it

comes to their duty to shareholders? It is up to them to make sure they

are as efficient and profitable as possible. Of course businesses are

there to make profit but they don't make it in a vacuum. Businesses

operate in this country because it is a safe

country and it has an efficient road system, a health system that

employees benefit from. So they are benefiting from the taxpayers and of

course they should be paying their fair share. That is a critical

point. Companies depend on infrastructure. I have an iPhone.

Many of its features were created from public sector re-search over

the internet in touch-screen technology, topping up pensions, law

and order to protect their poverty, and we could go on. What Mark says,

yes, politicians should clamp down on loopholes, but it is not a case

of companies saying that tax is so complicated that I cannot understand

what is going on and that is why I am avoiding tax. It is a choice.

Some companies choose to do it and some do not. It is agency here. The

point is, yes, clamp down on loopholes, but they are spending

huge amounts of resources going through complex tax laws to find the

loopholes and that is wrong. We have got to accept there is a trade-off

here. Owain might want there to be yet more tax collected by the

British government. But for every pound a company pays on tax, it is

?1 less they can do something with, for sample giving a pay rise to

staff. They don't! Companies do give pay rises to staff. If you want to

collect more in taxation, don't think you can do so completely value

free. The price might be passed on to customers. It might be less in

the pension fund. The trickle down theory has been disproved. You can

ultimately only tax human beings and if you want people to give more

money to the state, which Owen clearly wants, that means they have

less money to do other things with it. In the United States there are

something like $2.5 trillion sure that companies are not bringing

back. Why? Because they are paying 6% tax offshore and in the United

States it would be 35%. For me the smart thing is to lower the tax,

bring the money in, let it be invested, and then reap tax benefits

and the employees can benefit and wealth is created. That is smart. We

are talking about businesses at the moment, but what about individuals?

Where does morality lie? Small businesses, big businesses, avoiding

tax, taking advantage of loopholes, but individuals cannot do that so

where is the line? I try to be pragmatic about human beings. We

have all got our pools and bushes and it is natural for people to say,

who once to pay more tax? -- -- our pulls and pushes. And that is

normal. But when you know that other people cannot avoid tax, and you

can, there is a moral responsibility, firstly on

governments and lawmakers and our system as a whole, but then as an

individual you have got a choice as to how you make your choices when it

comes to paying will stop if a financial adviser came up to you

with free advice and said I know how to reduce your tax bill and it is

perfectly legal, what would you say? This is what I am saying. I can

understand why people feel why shouldn't I be able to do that

because I can give more to my children? I wouldn't personally

condemn somebody who said they are operating legally and having their

duty to their shareholders and their family. I can completely understand

that argument but I would say that the system has been rigged so that

large corporations like Vodafone have now avoided ?6 billion of tax.

They are not giving it to employees and communities. I will just say

because you have mentioned Vodafone that there are many other companies

as well that are under investigation by HMRC. I asked the question if a

financial adviser offered for free to reduce your tax bill by using

loopholes, would you say yes? No. I have an accountant because I am

self-employed and I have instructed the accountant to comply the spirit

of the law as well as the letter. I am self-employed so I am a sole

trader, because of the nature of my job. I could have chosen to become a

limited company but I am not and that is deceptive on my part. Some

people set themselves up as a limited company so they pay

corporation tax rather than income tax. I don't think they should do

that and it is the point I am making. It is choice. You are not

compelled by tax loopholes to exploit them.

They are there to be exploited if people generally have the resources

to do so. People watching this programme have just got to pay the

taxes they have got to pay and they don't have encountered that personal

advisers, and they have just got to pay them. Level the playing field

and take on the loopholes that people have an individual

responsibility to avoid. A number of the loopholes are deliberate, as you

rightly point out. It is very difficult to know. I have looked

into this, if I have paid for my full ISA this year, the government

has set up various incentives to invest in movies and children's

films at a hugely attractive tax rate. I assume this is because the

government wants me to put my money into movies and children's

television rather than another product. It is hugely tax efficient.

I don't think I can sit there and work out what George Osborne was

thinking at the time about the spirit of this rule when he brought

it in. That is a tax loophole and big companies are playing exactly

the same game on a more colossal scale than individuals with access

to financial advice. The function of ISAs is to incentivise saving

because that is good for the economy. That is the point. It is

not tax avoidance. It is so important to get this absolutely

clear. It is a loophole that was not intended to be there. ISAs are

advertised and publicised. Duty-free? What is the intention of

those products? It was introduced by legislation... What is the spirit of

that row? I don't know. It is expected that everybody can take

advantage of it when they pass through an airport and it is

intended by legislation so people can exploit it equally. You don't

need to be a big operation and you don't need a financial adviser and

it is open to everybody. I am saying stop! We can talk to Samanthi and

find out what you have been saying and perhaps you are not talking over

each other as well! It is as divisive at home as it is

here. Let's hear what you're saying. Ryan says: We've heard from Peter.

He says: We've heard from Zorba. Thanks,

Samanthi. We're not going back to duty free, we're just not! Charlie,

some people were talking about is whether it is fair that we all pay

the same amount of tax. We could strip it down and get rid of the

loopholes. Rich people don't need to pay tax. You can take shares,

dividends, get paid in the future. If you're that rich, you don't need

a pay cheque at the end of the week. The girl who hands out payslips

everybody, you get your couple of dozen, he would get a cheque for a

couple of billion. They don't need the money. I want to ask in question

- have you ever paid more than UO? We're talking about tax avoidance.

But I want know. -- than you owe. It is irrelevant, it is

about tax avoidance. You're taking a moral argument. I don't avoid tax,

that's the point. I don't have a financial adviser, I have an

accountant. I am not interested in your personal tax records. And I'm

sure our viewers aren't interested. The question is, would we all feel

better if we were all playing the same rate of tax and we were on a

level playing field, is that the way forward? If it enabled a level

playing field, but it doesn't. So it's fair that the rich pay more?

For example, right now, we have people who earn over ?100,000 a

year, and the Tories said they can go down to 45% tax after a certain

amount rather than the 50% we had. Under Thatcher, we had 60% as the

higher tax rate, and businesses were more than happy to pay that. When

you're making that level, it's fair that people whose shoulders should

contribute more. I'm not saying it is right from the beginning, that

level, but a progressive tax system is fair. Thank you, thank you very

much. Thank you for your comments. It's going to be a lively programme,

so do keep your comments coming in. Still to come on Sunday Morning

Live: The three priests who have become a worldwide singing sensation

perform for us here in the studio. Are there too many foreign

workers in the UK? That's what the Government will be

investigating as part of its aim to increase the use

of home grown talent. Companies will be encouraged

to train locally rather than recruit from abroad and the number

they employ from overseas More doctors will also be trained

here to reduce the need to bring in medical staff

from outside Britain. So, do foreign workers benefit us

or block opportunity? Tommy Sandhu has been sampling

views. I'm here in London, one of the most

ethnically diverse cities in the world. It's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has

told migrants, you are welcome. It appears the Government will have a

different idea. Should we be doing more to protect British workers over

migrant once? I think jobs should be given to the best people with the

best skills for the role, whether or not they are British. Mac -- foreign

workers do fill holes in the labour market, especially where British

workers don't want to do those jobs. They have less demand on servers and

they are better educated, so they bring more into the economy. Lots of

migrant workers are not taking any one's benefits. They get the jobs

because they are best placed, and most contribute positively to

British society. The problem is, people don't want to pay people high

wages, so migrant workers often come in and will work for lower wages. We

had people who came to Ireland, and they didn't spend a whole lot of

money and they drained money out of the country as well. I think we had

to encourage British people to get out and do jobs that maybe they

wouldn't have thought of doing, try and encourage them to get out there.

So, predominantly pro-migrant workers.

So are there too many foreign workers in the UK?

Joining us for this discussion is the writer and former prison

Welcome. Theodore, let's start with you. Would it be unethical for

employers to prioritise British workers for vacancies, as has been

suggested? You like it wouldn't be unethical, but it might be unwise.

Why? Why would it be unwise? Because the foreign workers are better. In

what sense? Better educated, have a better attitude to work and so on.

Why would it not be unethical, then? Ethics and wisdom are not the same

thing. Is it permissible for them to do it, but it wouldn't be advisable

for them to do it. OK, Salma, do you approve companies of being

obliged to publish the numbers of how many foreign workers they have?

We need to know what is happening and what they are doing about it. Do

we need more jobs? Yes, we do. But it is not foreign workers who are

blocking people. This home-grown notion is simply false. Theresa May

is pandering to a sentiment, and that is how they are justifying it,

saying, this is our answer to people's concerns. We should address

concerns such as low wages, lack of opportunity, but it is not because

of foreign workers. In the NHS, we have a shortage of staff. The reason

we have so many foreign doctors doctors who are trained abroad is

because we haven't trained sufficient numbers. In fact, we are

still understaffed. That is a Government decision, not because of

foreign doctor decided to take the place of someone else. Even now, we

are chronically understaffed. This type of language is divisive. It

makes people feel resentment. Now, someone will go to a hospital and

see a doctor and there will be some tension. How is that helpful in our

society? You can't deny that when it comes down to our everyday lives,

this type of rhetoric plays out in a nasty and unhelpful way. To pick up

the point, I mentioned in the introduction that more British

doctors are being trained by the NHS. Even that number, no way will

it meet the demand, so it is quite misleading. We need 100,000 more

doctors. It will take at least another decade for the ones they

have earmarked to get to that stage, and in the meantime, the fact

they've used the words that in the interim would allow doctors to say,

what does that make them feel? Let's pick up on this. Charlie, how

helpful is this rhetoric? Not at all, but at the same time, I want

something that benefits the consumer. If the foreign worker is

better, as the door was saying, and generally they are, it will bring

the price down. I use Polish workers all the time. My friend is a

property developer and has those guys working for him, and they had

things cleared up in under an hour. It is amazing what these guys do. I

don't care what you are, where you are from, I want someone who can do

the job efficiently at the best price. And I am sure there are

British workers who are saying... I don't like this divide and rule of

turning people against foreign workers. There are communities where

traditional industries have been destroyed and there is a lack of

good secure work. It is not because of foreign workers, not because they

are lazy. It is because of Government policy, and they are let

off the hook. You talk about the NHS, and every single year that

Theresa May has been part of this Government, they have cut the

funding for nursing places. That is why one in three nurses comes from

abroad. The care workers, the nurses and the doctors from Poland, Hungary

and Lithuania were looked after my grandmother in the last few months,

I want to thank them, and for looking after my ill and infirm

grandad, for bringing children into the world and looking after people

in their final moments. People have concerns about immigration that we

should debate, but we're talking about foreign nurses and doctors who

every single person watching this programme owes for either their own

lives of those people close to them. Treating them as a problem that

needs to be thrown out is disturbing. The Government's job is

to protect its country. Yes. Is the Government going along the right

lines by urging companies to employ from home? No. Politicians when they

see a stick, they always grasp the wrong end of it. The problem is, in

this country, it's not the foreign workers, it's the fact that many

employers prefer foreign workers because they work better. OK, what

about the Government encouraging British companies to train British

workers to that standard? The British Government can't even

arrange for picking up litter. That's not their job, that's

councils. It's part of their job and they can't do it. We have roughly

20% of people coming out of education that has cost about

?60,000 per head or more barely able to read. This is a miracle of this

organisation, and we see this overrun that -- over and over again.

It is not just this Government, or the last one or previous ones. I

don't actually believe the Government will be able to do this.

There is a system in the states, isn't there, disclosure of how many

foreign-born workers they have and US workers? I think they have, but

what is more important to me is getting people into jobs. Someone

said, why would you do anything to prevent an employer hi hiring

people's to me, you couldn't get a better education than a company that

owns 23 McDonald's. They take these young people and teach them pride,

esprit de corps and responsibility. We need to have a strategy to

support industry for the future. In Germany they have looked at climate

change as a threat that might not as a threat but as an opportunity. They

have invested in renewables, created hundreds of thousands of jobs and

apprenticeships for young people. Our Government has had a hands-on

approach on the basis that they will let the market decide, and if

industries disappear, so be it. In the European Union, our Government

vetoed efforts by the EU to try to stop Chinese steel dumping, which

was undermining the steel industry. The responsibility lies with the

Government for failing to invest in support industries, backed up with

apprenticeships, and that is why we lack skilled jobs. Let's go back to

attitudes. There are some jobs that British people simply don't want to

do. That may well be the case, but again, I don't want to get into

blame culture. This is what is worrying for me, if we are not

attacking disabled people or people on benefits, let's now attack anyone

who seems foreign. No, no, my question was, there are people who

are perceived to not want to do certain jobs, even though jobs are

there. That is why companies end up employing foreign workers. They do

these jobs, and then the people who didn't want to do them then say,

someone has taken my job. That is a specific case. It has been expressed

quite clearly amongst many people, and in the media. Of course I would

say, get a job. At the same time, there are so many opportunities that

are being denied to people because the investment is not there. We have

a housing crisis, so why not invest in construction? Why not have real

solutions to real problems? We had a brilliant example of Germany

investing in green energy. The other thing that hasn't really been

touched upon is the low wages. There is a race to the bottom. The poor

are pitted against the poorer. If we had a stronger wages Council and

trade unions, it would be about getting a fairer deal so we don't

have a situation where people can be working all hours of the day, every

day of the week, and still not earn enough to feed their families or

keep a roof over their head, and they rely on the tax payer

subsidising their employer with tax credits, and landlords getting other

?21 billion in housing benefit. Hard work should pay, and at the moment,

we don't have that, and I think we should have a living wage

introduced. 60% of people agreed that they felt British jobs should

be there for British workers. They might think that, but again, they

are getting the wrong end of the stick as to why there is this

situation. Just because 60% of people agree with it, doesn't make

it right. The implication being that British workers do want these jobs,

they just feel they are not there. Which is the 60%? Of those survey.

Of unemployed people? People in various employment. Hijabs -- you

can't just decree people to take jobs. You have people attending

university coming out with degrees that are of absolutely no use, they

are not of value educationally or vocationally, so they end up doing

jobs that they could have done some time ago. When leaving school.

About half of recent graduates are doing non-graduate work and we're

overtrained people because the jobs aren't there and that is the

problem. This frustrates me because immigrants are often used to deflect

blame from problems that politicians have caused. The lowest level of

house building since the 1920s, so a lack of affordable housing. Lack of

jobs, stagnating living standards because of public policy, and

services under strain because of cuts. But often we talk about these

issues through the prism of immigration. That lets politicians

off the hook so it is great for them. We will just get some thoughts

from our viewers. Samanthi is taking stock. There is some agreement about

government policy and training. We talk a lot about other people

taking British jobs, which British people don't want to do. And he

talks about his own experience in construction. It is interesting that

comment was made, given the example you spoke about earlier. It is not

greedy employers. They need to meet a bottom line and create a profit so

they get further investment, which creates further jobs. Also, you are

referencing the living wage. I can understand the attractiveness of it

but that doesn't really work. It is grateful person getting the living

wage but it doesn't help the poor person without a job. You want to

increase productivity, which increases wages. If you look at

France, France has lots of problems, and some of the same problems. If

you want care workers, it doesn't matter what you pay, they are hard

to find and that is because French people don't want to do that work

and foreign people are better and I know this from personal experience.

What was striking from those tweets is there is an issue of undercutting

terms and conditions so we need to change the law so all workers are

employed on the same terms and conditions otherwise we have a race

to the bottom. It is a case of stronger trade unions as well, so we

have the same terms and conditions. I was born

here and when my father came to this country, he worked for 30 years in

the Post Office and trade unions were stronger and there wasn't a

race to the bottom and there was Solidarity. There wasn't a feeling

of people coming in and undercutting other people and that is where we

get divisiveness. France has much higher rates of youth unemployment

and unemployment in general than we do. Another lively one. Thank you

for your comments. Keep them coming in.

With programmes like Play School, Jackanory and Play Away,

Floella Benjamin has been entertaining and enthralling

But there's a lot more to her than that.

Singer, actress, author, university chancellor and now

Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham has come a long way from arriving

in Britain as a child from Trinidad and initially encountering

A house with a door. Four scarlet berries left upon the tree. Thanks,

said the Blackbird. These will do for me. Oh, hello! My name is

Floella and I'm counting the twinkling stars in the night sky.

How many can you see? Floella Benjamin, just saying the name, I

have been saying it to people on my way to interview you today, and

everybody just smiles and says, oh, Floella! Is that a normal reaction

that you get everywhere you go? Everywhere I go, people tell me they

are my least cool babies. I started children's programmes for years ago.

-- my Play School babies. I didn't realise the importance of me being

on the screen for children, looking down the camera lens, and speaking

to that one person. I meet so many people on the street who write me

letters, in a restaurant, and they say, when I was little, I knew I had

somebody in the world that loved me and that was you because of the way

you said hello. Hello! Ready to play. What's the day? It's Friday. I

was born in the West Indies, on an island called Trinidad. I will show

you a photograph of me and my family. Tell me about the part of

your childhood when you arrived in the UK. Well, when I was a young

girl, I was brought up in Trinidad for the first ten years of my life

and I had two wonderful parents who instilled love and confidence in me

and I were so lucky to have a father who was a philosopher and a mother

who was an earth mother. So when I came to Britain, having to face

adversity, because of my background and where I had come from, that

helped me to deal with this kind of animosity, this violence, this

rejection that I had to face as a young child. How bad was that

racism? I remember as a ten-year-old child standing in the playground and

these people coming towards me, calling me the nasty names. Speaking

words that I had never heard before. And I remember saying to myself, I

am not going to cry, and I remember digging my nails into the palm of my

hand, standing there, up against the wall, thinking is this what England

is going to be like? I asked my mum what the words mean. She said, you

are living in England now and some people are not going to like you.

Some people are going to hate you because of the colour of your skin.

I remember looking down. I feel like crying now. Why are they going to

hate me? Why? Why? As a ten-year-old child that was pretty tough to take

and I started fighting, fighting my way through life, until I had what I

called my spiritual moment when I was 14. I was having a fight,

somebody was calling me nasty names and I suddenly heard a voice saying,

Floella, what are you doing? Because of their ignorance and stupidity,

you are going to get yourself into trouble. Stop it. Think about who

you are, believe in who you are, respectively so, and people will

respect you. That is when I learned to smile and I pass that message on

time and time again. If you read my book, there is a strong message in

belief and determination, that nobody can get you down. That is the

secret, you see? You remember and you forgive but you don't let it eat

you up. Those are incredible values. It feels very godly, very spiritual,

very much faith driven. Is that where it comes from as well as your

parents? When I was a little girl in Trinidad, going to church was an

important part of our well-being. When I came to Britain, we went to

church, we wanted to continue that same regime, and we were told what

are you doing here? You are not wanted in this church and we don't

want your kind here. And so my church became my head, my inner

Temple. The power of good. And having that powerful boot in your

heart and your soul is the importance of life. All faiths are

based on being good, and that is why you must teach children that nothing

can destroy you if you have that strong inner belief. You are now

Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham. What would the young Floella think if she

could see you now in the House of Lords doing what you do? I have got

politics in my DNA. My grandfather was the Deputy Prime Minister of

Antigua. My father was a trade union activist. I have always been

politically active. I campaigned for 20 years to get a minister for

children and I am doing exactly the same thing as I did long before I

went into the House of Lords. I stand up and I speak for children,

integrity, for fairness and justice. That is my mission in life, to make

a difference to every single child's life that I can touch. Half of

seven-year-olds have less than an hour of daily exercise. And being

Baroness Floella Benjamin of Beckenham is very significant for

me. When my parents wanted to live in Beckenham and went to view a

house in Beckenham, they said the police to arrest us because they

said black people don't live in a place like this. My mother said,

yes, we are going to live here and she is now buried in Beckenham

cemetery. She died before I became a Baroness. I went to the cemetery and

I said mum, dad, I am reclaiming Beckenham for you and I am going to

call myself Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham. When you were Chancellor

at Exeter university, did you hug every graduate? Yes, I was the

Chancellor for ten years and I decided when I became Chancellor

that I would hope people. I love hugging. I never missed a single

graduation ceremony. They all shout, Chancellor! We love you! I love

giving that love and affection to them because I know they in turn

will go out and change the world. Listen, you are the TV presenter's

presenter because we all grew up watching you on the TV. I need to

know that I have graduated from the university of their well Benjamin's

presenting the eight honours. Can I get a hug? You have passed! Lovely,

there we go! Thank you so much, Floella Benjamin. It is time for us

to go now, until tomorrow. Goodbye. Tommy never gives up the chance of a

hug. Baroness Benjamin, or just

Floella to millions, Today is the start of

a national week of prayer Christian groups are urging us all

to think about people behind bars, Rehabilitation is also vital

and this week a report into a government scheme

to supervise and support released prisoners found it was

failing in its aim to find The Justice Minister says a review

is being carried out. But clearly it's an uphill task

to give former So do prisoners deserve

more compassion? We are joined now by columnist

and commentator Carole Malone and from Bristol by Matt Wall

who is on the Prisons Week Committee and is national secretary

to the Community Chaplaincy network supporting chaplains

who work with offenders. The main purpose is prison is

rehabilitation and for that you need compassion. I don't agree that is

the main purpose prison. In the first place it is punishment then

rehabilitation. I think the problem for me and a lot of people who see

what is happening in the prison system today is the fact is we live

in a country now where more time, attention and money is spent on

criminals and not enough on the victims. A senior government adviser

said last year that the victims are now sidelined in the criminal

justice system, which focuses on criminals. That isn't fair. If

someone has been robbed, raped, stabbed, murdered, my compassion is

for them, not for the people who did it. Yes, I believe rehabilitation is

important. But I think punishment burst. People have got to be

accountable and take responsibility for what they did because we owe

that to victims and their families. How do you make the balance, I win?

I have been violently rocked myself and I don't want other people to be.

It is not the case of wishy-washy, hand-wringing liberals who just care

about the criminal, I was a victim of crime, rather than the victims

themselves. It is just that the system isn't working. Half of

prisoners reoffend within the first year. It is not working. You will

not like the Norwegian justice system and I will put that out

there. They have a prison system which is the Daily Mail's worst

nightmare. I know you don't work for the Daily Mail! I didn't mean you.

They imprison far fewer people per capita. They have comfortable prison

cells and they are allowed to socialise and the focus is on

rehabilitation and their reoffending rate is much lower than ours. If our

starting point is to stop crime, start there. Our prisons are pretty

good as well. A lot of prisoners say their prisons are better than where

they live. That is an indictment of those conditions! Let us talk to

somebody who works with offenders, a chaplain. Matt, why do prisoners

deserve mercy, prayers and compassion?

I am delighted to launch the prisons we campaign which is about racing

complex issues. We don't just talk about prisoners, we talk about

victims and everyone else involved in the criminal justice system, and

wanting communities to be somewhat of -- to be supportive. If you look

at research, it shows that punitive approaches to prison lead to a

higher reoffending rate. Let's face it, most people will come out of

prison eventually. Evidence shows that building trusting relationships

and having positive role models and accepting communities gives a much

higher chance of leaving a criminal lifestyle. Compassion is important

and it enables people to make those long-term changes that are going to

lead to more productive lives. Theodore, what about the role of

religion when it comes to rehabilitating people in prison? I

agree that rehabilitation is the wrong word. My experience of

religion in prison is that there is a time at which prisoners have had

enough of crime, the life of crime, and they give up anyway. If you look

at those statistics of robbers and burglars, they give up by the age of

39, whatever you do. Whether religion makes people give up or

they are thinking of giving up and they become religious, I'm not quite

sure. What word with you use instead of rehabilitation? Rehabilitation

implies that there is something wrong, that it is a moral

physiotherapy. I don't think that is so. Statistics show that prisoners

rehabilitate themselves in the sense that before long they give up

themselves. Is there a point at which people are beyond

rehabilitation, beyond compassion? I think we need more compassion, not

less, whether it is for the victims of crime or the perpetrators. There

is a pragmatic as well as a moral point. In this country, almost 80%

of prisoners are people who have reoffended, so clearly, the prison

system in this country is not working. As Owen said, he went

through a horrendous experience. You don't want other people going

through that. Murderers have a choice about whether to murder, so

do rapists. I prefer the word mercy. My mercy is for the people have been

raped and Rob Dunmore don't. If we live in a society where equal

amounts of time and money were spent to fix -- on victims... Report was

produced last year that said victims of crime feel isolated and ignored.

Because our criminal justice system is broken. They are the priority for

me, and the people who commit the crimes come second. Owen. We're

basically locking up mentally ill poor people. That is a failure of

Government and of society. On that again, the point about

rehabilitation and fight is important, is because it is

important for preventing more victims. All prisoners, almost all,

will come back into society at some point. But it isn't working. Are we

not interested in what works? My main interest... My main interest is

victims,... How do we stop more people like me who have been victims

of crime repeatedly, how do we stop that? We do it by being pragmatic in

looking at what works. It works in Norway. You have to make the

distinction between primary prevention, which is preventing

people from becoming criminals in the first place, from what you do

when they have become criminal. Let's get the view from Matt, then.

Does prison work in terms of allowing prisoners to come back into

society and be a positive part of society? There is a really high

reoffending rate at the moment. 46% of people leaving prison reoffend

within a year. So there is clearly a lot more to be done. I would call

for more innovative, community-based responses to enable people to have a

fresh start, and for communities to give people a chance. If you are an

employer, look at finding opportunities where people with

criminal convictions can take a job with you. If you are in a

neighbourhood or a church, welcome people, except them and see the best

in them while being aware of risks, but having structures in place for

those. Do you think prisoners are being sent to prison for long enough

if the reoffending rates are so high, Matt? I would like to see

fewer people in prison. In recent years, there have been fewer young

people going into prison, and that is a good trend that I would like to

see continued with women and lower risk offenders. There should be more

innovative community-based responses where people can reintegrate into

communities rather than damaging responses that can perpetuate

problems and we'll see further crime as a result. Can I ask, do you think

prisons are tough enough? My view is that if they were tougher, people

wouldn't want to go back there. Can you hear me, Matt? Just quickly, the

United States are very tough prisons but they have a higher crime rate.

No they don't actually, they have a lower rate. Lower than Britain? Yes,

they do. Apart from the very important crime of murder. They have

had a higher rate since the colonies were established there. We look at

the figures for violent crime, per crime, in France, I looked it up,

and this with the difficulties that might there are difficulties with

comparison, they had a six to an eighth of the rate of Spain. The

idea that we are terribly punitive is just not true. If that were the

case, then making the prison regime less pleasant woodwork, it doesn't.

In places like Sweden and Norway, where they have followed through on

a different rehabilitation approach, they are shutting down prisons. The

reoffending rate is less than half of what we have here, so surely we

should have some humility and see what works. It should never be about

victims or prisoners, it has to be about compassion for both. Let's

find out what the viewers are saying. We're hearing what these

guys are saying all the time - your important, too. It is an emotive

subject, and people are showing that compassion depends on the crime that

has been committed. Lots of different views there.

Apologies, our guest in Bristol has lost Sam. So we have lost Matt. So,

compassion. Yes, one of the people said get rehabilitation after you

have served time and realised what you've done. You feel accountable

for your crime and you understand what you're done, then rehabilitate.

I think it has be earned. People go into prison and they do three GCSEs,

they get free health care, free dentistry, everything. It is not a

terrible place to be these days. The idea that depriving someone of

liberty is punishment enough - it isn't. We have got Matt back. We try

to ask you whether or not you think the prison system is tough enough on

prisoners to enable them to serve their punishment and then be ready

to come out into society? We need rehabilitative approaches in prison.

46% of people leaving prison reoffend within a year, and we need

to be creative about finding waste of supporting them to make changes

and to believe in them, that they can live a better future that

doesn't have to be characterised by their past. Theodore. I think the

fact that so many reoffend so quickly is an argument for longer

sentences, frankly. Given the fact that most people will give up crime

later in their lives. We do have fairly long sentences. There are

people in prison today for having done graffiti and they were

sentenced for two three years. Then they are mixing with rapists and

murderers, and prisons are becoming finishing schools for criminals.

Final word. I am a peacemaker. I think we should have less

non-violent criminals in prison and we should be locking up more races,

for example. If you rate in Britain, you get away with it in most cases.

Thank you, all, for a great and lively panel discussion. I hope you

enjoyed it. That's just about all

from us for today. To sing us out, we have a musical

trio who are as at home They've sung for the Queen

and the Pope and are Here are The Priests

with Morning Has Broken. # Blackbird has spoken

# Like the first bird # Praise for the springing

# Fresh from the word # Sweet the rain's new fall,

# Sunlit from heaven # Like the first dewfall,

# On the first grass # Praise for the sweetness

# Of the wet garden # Sprung in completeness

# Where his feet pass # Mine is the sunlight,

# Mine is the morning # Born of the one

light # Praise with elation,

# praise every morning # Mine is the sunlight,

# Mine is the morning # Born of the one

light # Praise with elation,

# praise every morning