Episode 18 The Big Questions

afternoon. Welcome to The Big Questions. We're at Ashton Park

School in Bristol and I'm Nicky Campbell. The beheading of Drummer

Lee Rigby shocked the entire nation this week. How could such an

atrocious act could be carried out in God's, or rather, Allah's name?

Our first Big Question: Have British Muslims done enough to counter

extremism? A competitive market in tax rates

seems to be developing, not for the little people but for the corporate

giants that bestride the globe. Our next Big Question: Is tax avoidance

immoral? Welcome everyone to The Big Questions. Michael Adebolajo, one of

the two suspects for the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, was brought up in

a Christian family but converted to Islam in 2003, after 9/11 and the

invasion of Iraq. He was tutored by the infamous hate preacher, Omar

Bakri Muhammed, who recalls Michael asking questions about when violence

is justified. Despite billions of taxpayers' money being spent on

counter-terrorist strategies since then, much of it aimed at Britain's

Muslim communities, radicalisation continues here and now. Have British

Muslims done enough to counter extremism? Julie Siddiqi, it is

enough being done by Muslim communities? The first thing to say

is that our thoughts go to the family and friends of Drummer Lee

Rigby. It has been heartbreaking at every level, hearing it unfolding on

the radio and the news, shock and disbelief that something like that

could happen in such an open way. The question about what work has

been done is a good question, which is why we are here. It is a fair

question. Yes, it is interesting that most asking the question are

Muslims today, and there is a question about the issue of

extremism and what it is. I feel I am seeing extremism up and down the

country the last few nights with people being attacked, but comparing

it to 2005 and since then, a lot of mistakes have been made, but seeing

this on the streets of London, clearly no one can be complacent and

there is a lot of scope to do a lot more work. What more work? What

needs to be done? I think it is not an easy one, and a lot of the work

around bringing people together, actually talking about this issue,

is complex. It is not black and white. It clearly isn't a black and

white issue, but once we start to understand and see emerging the

story behind these two people, the people they have been associating

with, clearly more needs to be done about that. Ashgar Bukhari, you are

looking sceptical. I am sceptical. Organisations should be out there

doing things. It is very simple, teach young Muslim children that the

anger they feel at the oppression around the world, across the muslin

world, it is easily tackled peacefully and democratically. Teach

them the way Martin Luther King taught black people they could make

a change within society without killing anyone. The muscle

institutions, not the people, have failed to do that. In the impact

statement after the atrocity when it was said by apologising in such a

stupid way, these pathetic Muslims are reinforcing the enemy's

narrative, what does that mean? are claiming it is Islam to blame,

the reason they have taken this violent action is because it is an

Islamic obligation. Who are the pathetic Muslims? Muslim authorities

claiming it is not foreign policy. think the difficulty with someone

like Ashgar saying this, talking about Muslims forming institutions,

and to put a blanket on everyone doing this for the last ten years is

really an helpful. I would rather he worked with people. I would rather

use out and worked with people like me, rather than sitting on the

fringes. I am working to try to teach young Muslims the democratic

values that organisations like yourselves are failing to do. When

you have done it, then you can complain. Saying we need to get

involved in democracy, they don't believe it. Teach them democratic

values and stop covering for them. Are you teaching democratic values?

I stood in the Parliamentary election and I am teaching it.

were you apologising? We need to make it clear, the loss of Drummer

Lee Rigby's life is wrong and of course we must be sorry for that, we

must say to the family that our hearts go out to you. Those people

have done it, they have claimed to do it in the name of God. There is

no God in murder. They have claimed it is an Islamic act. They have done

it in the name of Muslims, no Muslims would support that. My point

is that we need to apologise to save these people have held Islam, they

have hijacked it and they are attacking everyone. Secondly, why

are they doing it? Lots of reasons. Foreign policy is one, there is also

deprivation, discrimination, underachievement, poverty, a whole

host of social issues. We need to do everything together. We need to do

it together, not about only Muslims. It is Muslims and non-Muslims

together. The last ten years we have been talking about muslins needing

to sort their home out as soon as possible. We have got the narrative

wrong. Christians, Sikhs and Jews coming together saying England is

our home and we will sort it out together. These young men who have

lost their way, how can anyone persuade them? They are less likely

to listen to me than to you, but how can any person persuade them there

is a method of expressing their discontent? Since 9/11, I have spent

my life arguing for the importance of democratic space where we can

talk about the difficult issues. We live in a free country. The movement

has been a great buttress to the argument of extremists who want to

hijack it for their own evil ends because they do want to clash, we

cannot be in denial of that. In this country the majority of people are

against the wars in Afghanistan and the war that happened in Iraq.

they don't want to attack people brutally in the street. That is my

point. Unfortunately, because politicians don't like to make the

link between foreign policy and atrocities at home, they want to say

it is nothing to do with politics. It is, but at the same time, as the

muslin, I do feel the need to distance myself. It is not a

pleasant thing to have to do when a paedophile is not from a certain

background, or people don't feel they have to condemn, but I

acknowledge people are feeling scared and it is part of humanity to

reach out and that knowledge this, and we do feel genuine compassion

for Lee Rigby's family. I don't know what was in the minds of those

people. The terrorists themselves said clearly why they did the

killing, they said they did it and I for one night, a tooth for a tooth,

you will never find peace until we find peace. When a woman challenged

them to stop this, they said I'm sorry you have to see this but

children are dying in their lands. I am not justifying it, I am

explaining it. You can stop it by institutions, the thousands of

mosques in this country, the pathetic mosque leaders teaching and

educating Muslim children that there is a democratic way. The

suffragettes did it, Martin Luther King did it, why can't we do it?

would agree with you from the 2001 narrative, in 2013I go to many masks

and I have not had a single weekend where I have not gone to an area to

talk about these issues to tell people Britain is our home, we care

about this country. It is an important narrative. This morning I

received an e-mail that came from Birmingham, an Asian man was

brutally murdered by some racist folks. The family has asked me if I

would be kind enough to go to the funeral prayer and addressed the

crowd and condemn the violence act. Of course I would. EDL are nasty

pieces of work, the BNP are racist and we need to stand up to them. The

commonality between EDL and the BNP, and the folks that murdered Lee

Rigby is that they share one platform and they are extreme in

their views and we need to tackle that head-on. Racism, as well as

extremism, they form part of the same problem that is causing the

trouble today. We are not in any denial about extremists. People have

come out, day in, day out, women's groups, young people's groups have

openly said Chaudhry should not be allowed in this country. We had a

conversation saying what is it you think we should be doing that we are

not doing? Because I don't want to see violence on the streets of

Britain. I didn't get any answer because the fact is we are doing

these things. I am open to it. Nobody gains from this violence

apart from the extremists. As a British Muslim, we are vulnerable

both ways. Our citizens are not bombproof when extremists carry out

this violence, and when awful things happen, we as a community are

pointed out as a collective and now we are seeing the attacks on mosques

so there is no vested interest in being complacent about it. What some

people still don't get is why these young men who were British

Nigerians, these suspects, and this happens in so many other cases as

well, they feel more affinity with people from lands to which they have

never visited than they do with their fellow citizens. Why more

affinity with people from foreign lands? We need to call a spade a

spade. We had no Muslim terrorism in this country until we had the

illegal war in Iraq and we need to acknowledge that. That does not

justify what happened in 7/7, but how did these people become

radicalised? The new music out there -- mood music is to do with D3 Ms,

the mollis, the mosques. There is a notion of Muslims are going to

heaven and everyone else is going to hell. This then is translated in

some mosques and many mosques giving them the pull pet or giving them a

meeting space and most mosques have the supplementary school. That's

ridiculous. Let me finish my point, please.

It is not going down well? The truth is always bitter.

There is conditioning and brain washing, it is coming from why? It

is coming from the mosque and they believe, it the children are raised

to believe they are better than others. There is the them and us

narrative. How many Muslims are fully integrated into this society?

Not many. Most of them, they have one foot out there. They bring the

culture from Pakistani or wherever and they want to bring it here. You

can't impose Muslim into -- Islam into Birmingham. We need an Islam

that's relevant to this society. Some of us have been working, week

in, week out... Julie, it is in the papers today research that you have

been involved with. Do people, generally the British population, do

they believe that Muslim communities are well integrated in our society?

Well, the results were interesting. In the three days after Woolwich we

saw this backlash or attacks or damage against nine mosques, around

160 incidents of anti-Muslim prejudice and we expected that to

trickle into public opinion towards Islam. The picture is more positive

than the newspapers would have us believe. Especially among the young

and just to be clear, the majority of Muslims in this country subscribe

to national identity, share our values, pledge aleaguance to the

democratic system as such and the view expressed by some on the

far-right, but also in sections of our tabloid newspapers, the Leveson

Inquiry was good to pick up on. This is somehow symbolic of a broader

threat to the British society and that is not reflected in the

evidence. It is not reflected in the data.

There was one figure in the data today or in the poll today that 18

to 24-year-olds, 38% of 18 to 24-year-olds say Muslims are

compatable with the British way of life. Is that not worryingingly low?

Well... Just to be clearThere is a sharp generational divide in Britain

today and Britain is going through a generational drift. The over 60s on

issues like immigration and their views towards Islam are increasingly

and especially hostile on those issues. The young are far more

accepting and at ease... Four out of ten. It is not great. There are

challenges that remain, but the question for today is can Muslims do

more? And the answer is we can all do more. Who is not integrated?

38% feels that. It is a perception and you have got to ask where is

that coming from? What about sections of the irresponsible

British media who are fuelling... APPLAUSE

Yous can't just blame the messenger. There is a problem. The Muslims are

not fully integrated and you can supplies it and dice as you want.

They are going to go back to their homeland.

You have been trying to come in for a while. On Thursday, I went down to

my local mosque at Streatham. They organised a public meeting. I went

along to find out and listen to Muslims. They invited me up to the

platform and I ended up having a debate and I heard these issues and

this debate and one of the messages was they are trying to get out there

with their message of love. With their message of peace and

reconciliation and justice, but they can't get airspace to do it. If over

the last six months we had been giving more time on the BBC, in the

media, to those kinds of voices rather than people like UKIP, the

world would be a much better place. The problem is, UKIP have a

considerable elector ral support which in a democracy, you have to

acknowledge. The problem with political debate, we are seeing a

shift across-the-board where small minorities are super imposed on

whole communities and we are stereotyping whole communities. We

are seeing a rise in disability hate crime. We are seeing it across a

range of issues. We are reaping what we sow.

I am from Statham. We have been trying -- Streatham, we have been

trying for years to bring the Muslim community in Streatham. The London

mayor doesn't give us the ability to do it. The British people don't give

us the chance to bring the youngsters together, to give them

the democrat democratic way of living as a Muslim. Excuse me, can I

finish? Can I finish, please? Muslims will know this. If you go

into a mosque and say, " Looks I want to talk about kwps"? Can I

finish, please. There is no politics in a mosque, get out. Is that the

case? There's not the case. The case is, the ignorant people who don't

give the abt for us to, the leaders of the Muslim society to do what

they have to do. They give them no chance. Do you want funding?Funding

and part of space, but we need a space that we can get... What

another mosque? They are doing a good job. So many youths in this

country, they are alcoholics, and some are drug addicts.

Thank you, sir. What about this issue, you have

debatdz, an gem -- debated an gem crowdry has been on this programme

and his people have been on this programme. Another debate on the Big

Questions was about football and one of an gem crowdry's -- an gem

Choudhary people said they could use football stadiums as punishment. Is

there a danger that people at home think that's what Muslims think?

we have heard the statistics that we are hearing about per ception, the

statistics is Muslims feel more at home. More British, more part and

parcel of the wanting to be part and parcel this country. I would say

that our organisation in the last four days, wave been overwhelmed by

-- we have been overwhelmed by the good people of this country who want

to come together and want to come together. They see there perception

is one thing and reality is something different. But what are

the mosques doing in return? It is just a simple question. Let me ask

this question. There are approximately 3,000 mosques in this

country, why couldn't they do alsingle open day in this country --

do a single open day? Let me finish. There was an open day in the East

London Mosque recently. I spoke at ten mosques last year. What about

the rest of them? I know hundreds of mosques up and down the country...

Stop lying. Stop lying. There are problems with mosques, to agree with

management and resources. Stop giving excuses.

Let me make my point. Mosques up and down the country, the 3,000 of them,

we need to change the way they are managing the way and the way they

are reaching out, but there is an issue here and that's five years

ago, ten years ago when the 9//11 incident happened and the July 7th,

the mosques may have been closer in their attitude. Ten years on, I

believe there has been a seismic shift. They are didding more open

days and hosting more programmes and I knee, so far until today -- I

know, so far until today, some mosques never said no to me.

You have debated with Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary.

Do you think it is good to debate with these people? Do you think it

is good to shine the light on them? It is vital. I think, you know, in

Britain, in an open, democratic society, sunlight often is the best

disinfectant however, I'm not sure in the sdas that followed the --

days that followed the sickening attack in Woolwich it has been a

great platform to give radical, extremists who don't reflect either

the vast and overwhelmingly majority of Muslim, Christian, British

sentiment, I don't think it has been a right to give a platform to people

like Anjem crowd Choudary. We need more light than heat. We need to

address the issues, in a clear and measured way. The Government has

failed to consult and listen to what Muslims on the street, at the

grass-roots level, MCB, mus lambic society of Britain -- mus lambic

society of Britain, they have the singer on the pulse in how do we

address grievances? How do we undermine that extremist narrative?

How do we do the things that the previous Government did really well

and the Government has not listened. You can't, you know, clamp down on

somebody having a particular world view? No, you can't. But if the

complaint from people like Tommy Robinson and the English Defence

League and mosques and imams and Muslims across the country is, " We

don't have a good enough basis for authentic Islamic teaching Q." Well,

the Government has seen fit to cut funding going into communities,

going into organisations like this. For example, if you lived in Finland

and your kids were at school and you said we arrived in the country and

we could do with support for the children here and the State says, we

will help teach you Arabic and good Islamic studies. We don't really

have that system of education in this country and it allows these

young people to become radicalised. We have to recognise there is a

problem around language. There is a problem around allowing individuals

to become radicalised, but I think, Sir Malcolm Rifkind made a point

this week and I hope it is something David Cameron will pay attention to.

He said he wants to lead a if taskforce to look at addressing

extremism in this country. Malcolm Rifkind has made... Please.

All of these extremists. This is ye ideology that is seeping to the

mosque. Sir Malcolm Rifkind made clear this week our secret

intelligence services have questions to answer about their efforts to

radicalise, we know that this organisation that one of the alleged

killers that is been connected with and Anjem Choudary. Someone has come

out in the press to give a statement to say he has been working with CIA.

Uch of that will emerge -- much of that will emerge. Have the

Government failed here or has previous governments failed here?

Well, I don't think Government funding for teaching of Islam would

make much of a difference, but I think teaching about Islam is

essential in all of our schools so he people understand the multi-cull

turm society that we -- multi-cultural society that we live

in. Where Government funding could make a big difference that is about

more integration. For instance, teaching of English for people who,

for whom it is a second language and that perhaps has been cut in some

places and I think that's a mistake particularly for women. My

constituency in Bristol is one of the most multiilt os dshl multi-

multiethnic in Britain. Women who come to my constituency office can't

speak English even though they have been living here for 20 years. In

ply, it might -- it might. Not speaking English doesn't cause

terrorism. Empowering women can make a big did

difference. The terrorists spoke English. They

were English. They were born here and they were raised as non-Muslims.

The reason why the Government funding and these initiatives will

fail because they can't admit and thus cannot fund the fact that the

root cause of this ises foreign polls -- of this is foreign policy.

Richard? The problem of alienated young immigrants, men is a problem

in itself when they latch on to a version of religon which is doubly

legitimises their alienation you have a perfect storm. I don't see

that it is clear yet that respectable majority of Islam could

get nice and awfully integrated and democratic. That might make, if this

alienation of this is a particular character might make these people

more prone to listen - one of the things they are alienated from is

their own people and their own majority religon. As a mother

myself, for our children we have almost torn our hair out trying to

find a place where we could get the best of both worlds. Good academic

education with Islamic teaching has been so hard to find, and a lot of

those parents who had been in my position set up Muslim schools and

not a single person who has committed any extremist act has come

out of those schools because there is a framework of education. A lot

of people who come out of that grounds with gang culture, many of

those are British and not immigrants have been born here, brought up

here, disaffected young men who don't have anywhere to go and learn

and education. The Prophet Muhammad came to... You know the culture of

the tribes, you kill one of ours, we kill one of yours, he came to stop

that and create law and order among young people and he was invited to

do so. This is a question I want to ask the Imam because you can take

many lines out of holy Scriptures and take them out of context. If a

man came to you and said it says in the Koran, "I will instil terror

into the hearts of the non-believers" , what would you say

to him? A lot of people misread the Koran, often because they don't

understand the language, the context in which it was revealed, and how it

should be applied. God is saying, if you kill one innocent person it is

like taking the lives of humanity. The Koran defines it very clearly,

anyone who is guilty for crime should be tried in due process. In

the same passage it says if you save one life it is like saving the lives

of the whole of humanity. I say to you, if he is an innocent person and

not a soldier, what do you say? There are five primary purses, to

protect life, property, faith, and honour of people, if these people

are talking about protecting lives and property, they are talking

Islamic. The Islamic framework is simple, personal piece with the

society around you, and if you are at war with people, constantly

squabbling and threatening, can you please allow me to finish? They will

have a counter for whatever he said. Let me finish my sentence. Prophet

Muhammad, when he walked the streets, the Muslims would say the

trusted person is walking. Unfortunately the image we have

created is based on an -- a misunderstanding of Islam. It comes

from these extremists. It doesn't help, does it? There we must leave

this particular one, but peace be upon you, especially you! Thank you

for taking part. I expect lots of you will have something to say as

well. To have your say just logon to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and follow

the link to the online discussion. Or use our hashtag on Twitter. You

can also send us your views about our next Big Question: Is tax

avoidance immoral? Next week there's a pre-recorded special on the

environment from here in Bristol but we'll be back live from Warrington

on June ninth, then we're in Brighton on June 23rd.

Google, Amazon, Apple, Starbucks, Fiat and many other companies too

numerous to mention - can they be blamed for shopping around the world

to get the best tax rate for their profits? Apple, for instance, paid

just 2% on $74 billion on overseas income by taking advantage of a

loophole in the Irish tax code. It may be in their shareholder's

interests, it may be perfectly legal, but is tax avoidance immoral?

From Oxfam, and Oxfam did an interesting and extensive report on

this, the tax gap is huge, isn't it? The research we put out this week is

looking at how much individuals are stashing offshore. They are all

using tax havens so it is not just a case of corporate responsibility but

rich individuals, and we found that $156 billion is being lost to

developing countries and globally. The third of that is in British tax

havens, in the overseas British Crown dependencies. How much more

would we get? We would have $156 billion globally more to play with

if those tax havens didn't exist. We have hundreds of thousands people

queueing up at food banks, and that money is enough to end extreme

poverty twice over. What about the self-employed plumber who is taking

his profits out of one year and shifting them around a bit to lessen

his tax liability to the next year? And also something for a rainy day?

Is that immoral? The point is we have massive global corporations

paying little to zero tax whilst ordinary people are tending to pay

their fair share. It is very unlikely you will be able to find a

plumber who can put their money of sharp and have an army of

accountants. Is that immoral? Everybody has a responsibility to

pay the fair amount of tax. If somebody has a business here, it is

their responsibility to pay their fair share of tax. Everybody also

makes a choice so the system itself is immoral and the numbers we put

out this pretty clear, and whilst that is the case, who changes the

system and who creates it? That is politicians and large companies who

have a lot of sway over this. Small businesses don't have that

opportunity. Alex Salmond says he is going to set a lower corporate tax

rate of Scotland becomes independent so if the business moves its

headquarters to Edinburgh as a result of that, is that tax

avoidance? It is not about whether somebody is operating within the

law, 85% of the British public believe even when something is

within the law that doesn't make it right. They still think it is wrong

for companies to avoid tax. What do you think? If you pay more tax than

you are legally required to, you are effectively making a donation to the

government so to say it is immoral to pay the minimum legally required

is to say you have a moral duty to make donations to the government and

I think that is obviously nonsense. Even if you do think people should

be charitable, and again I don't think you have any obligation to be

charitable... It is not about charity. There are rules that apply

to ordinary people and rules that apply to powerful people. The head

of Phones4U said that when he started his business he had offers

flooding through the door offering tax avoidance schemes. The question

asked was is somebody who pays the minimum amount of tax they can

immoral, and I am saying no. In fact almost everybody does it. Those that

cannot reduce their tax bill through these mechanisms, very few of them

donate money to the government. They pay the minimum they are obliged to

and nobody accuses them of being immoral. Nobody changes their views

on this as the tax rates go up and down. As a society we choose

everybody should pay X amount, we decide this is the right level and

we should be paying it. The spirit of the law is clear. You shouldn't

be deceiving people and tax avoidance is about pretending you

haven't got the right amount of money. You can insist firms be

straightforward and honest, to be above board. They are not deceiving

anybody. This is what is behind tax avoidance. You go into the taxman,

it is a fair fight, a well resourced tax office and you say this is the

scheme, we can get past you and the taxman says that is legal, on you

go. If you are an independent of the chain on the high street, you don't

have the same... Bringing morality into the situation, it is a

difficult shift. I would say that firms and people have an obligation

to be good citizens and once... In terms of tax and you obey the law.

You will get into a situation beyond doing anything you can get away

with, it becomes voluntary to pay. I think firms have an obligation not

to just dole out money to governments because they have an

obligation to their customers to keep their products cheap, to their

employees to keep in business and to their shareholders. Those

obligations are clear as are their legal obligations. Don't import

morality, it is too tricky. Morality is fundamental to this and the idea

customers will get the worst deal if they ship their profits board is

nonsense. As long as they are making a profit, they will stay in this

country. They are taking from customers and not investing in their

high street where they operate, if they get burgled they are taking

advantages of the police service but not paying into it, taking with one

hand and not giving back anything. think it is a very tricky situation

in which you have successful popular NGOs and journalists on the left

rabbiting on about this and what they are managing to do is produce a

situation which firms get themselves into a beauty competition for your

favour. That is fine but it may not be for the public good, but it

definitely is not something that has been organised democratically. The

tax system, flawed as it is, is democratic and when we improve it

internationally it will be internationally more democratic.

governments are unfairly lobbied. There is not a fairness here.

cannot unfairly lobby the government. In our country companies

did sweetheart deals where they paid less tax than they should have. The

tax is set at a level to make it easier to people... I exploitation

because they do benefit from the security in this country, which

everybody pays into. The proportionality that they are paying

into compared to the profits they gain is not fair. Some of these

figures are extraordinary. Starbucks paid 8.6 million in total in UK

taxes on sales of 3.1 billion. We have deals like the Goldman Sachs

deal letting off 20 million quid in a deal with HMRC so they are

negotiating their tax liability. Do you think companies have a moral

imperative to pay as little tax as possible? Certainly they do, they

have a duty to their shareholders. The management of a firm, agents of

the owners of the firm, and they have a moral duty to the burners to

minimise their costs and maximise their revenues. If there was an

opportunity for reducing their tax bill and they didn't take it, they

would be negligence. The problem here is this discussion is perverted

by the pretence that firms are people, firms are not people. Firms

cannot bear costs. One firm pays tax, the company cannot suffer,

ultimately the cost is borne by some individual people. The three classes

of people are the corporate tax burdens are the customers through

higher prices, the staff through lower pay and the shareholders

through lower dividends. The tax ultimately will fall on these people

in some proportion, it varies a lot depending on economic

considerations. These three classes of people bear the costs so when you

say I want corporations to pay more tax, you are saying I want these

people to pay more tax, and it would be a much better system if you are

eradicated corporate tax or set it to zero, and then you can have a

more transparent tax system, one less prone to avoidance.

everybody else pays except the corporations? You are not

understanding the point I just made. Everybody is paying. Corporations

cannot pay. You are corporate through your

pension fund. You are corporate through your employer.

Corporation tax rates here, lower than Italy, hence fear is moving

here. There is a race to the bottom going on at the moment. Is it good

that Fiat moved here? We have to be careful about the con Dex in which

the race -- context in which the race to the bottom takes place. One

of the things that Christian Aid is concerned about, some countries are

missing out. 160 billion could tackle global hunger. One of the

questions is we recognise and the OECD and George Osborne recognises

that the system is wrong and out moded. The tax system encourages

this race to the bottom. It encourages this sense of competition

in a way therefore, if we were, that's why we are calling along with

other organisations for the G 8 to begin to address a global

collaborative if you like... global tax rate? Not a tax rate, but

a tax system. The tax system is wrong that is allowing people to

shift their profits around. Would a global tax system

acknowledged by the parties, would that that work? A fairer one. One

that considers redistribution of wealth. Considers the poverty

suffered by Third World countries including what happened in

Bangladesh when the building clapsed. Remember big -- collapsed.

Remember big companies were making their shirts over there and there

was no health and safety laws. Our tax system needs to be overhauled.

The State is too greedy. It takes too much money from people and

wastes a lot of money. We need to cut the weighsage and become more

efficient with the wastage. People who are less well off are paying a

lot more than the bigger companies. That's unfair and we need to stop

that. Creating a fairer system, a modern system would work for

everybody. Jamie? As I tried to get across,

corporates don't pay tax. They write the cheque, but the cost of it is

borne by individual people. A global tax system? Well, a global tax

system is a nightmare. I can see why governments like it because that

gives you nowhere to hide. We don't want benefit cheats or tax cheats.

We talk go scroungers all the time. We talk about ben bit cheats and --

benefit cheats, the reality is that benefit cheats cost us 1. .2

billion. The benefit is �1. 3 billion. The tax benefit system

costs us �130 billion. This is a big massive issue especially in this

time of austerity. Espotionly in this time of -- especially in this

time of global economic crisis. I don't expect firms to pay over and

beyond what they have to do. That's and unnatural and unrealistic to

expect. Against human nature? So we have to

work with human nature on this, but at the same time we have to accept

something which is a fair. If we have a fairer system, more people

can be taken out of tax. More people can pay less tax because at the

moment it is disproportionate because poorer people are paying

more. If it is illegal, is it immoral?

Jamie's series is spot on. The trouble is, corporations and

individuals don't necessarily follow that model. You have to look at

their motivation. If they are doing something like locating themselves

in Monaco which is a Grand Prix race driver might do... Or Dublin?Or

selling their products out of Luxembourg, they are structuring

their affairs to avoid tax. Not to he best serve the customer in

Jamie's classical model. You need rewrite the global tax rules. The

Government is making a start on that amongst the big club of economic

countries, the OECD and the European Union because our tax laws are out

of date. They were wherever in the aftermath of the First World War.

They don't mention the internet and E commerce and that's why we need a

change amongst all the big countries because we are losing and I agree

with Oxfam, it is a problem for developing countries as well.

So Jamie, Jamie, Jamie. So the sales that, the books, Amazon in

Luxembourg, all the books and CDs that we're buying, that's helping

the Luxembourg economy. How is that fair? Well, I don't see that it is

helping the Luxembourg economy. is not helping our economy. I don't

know why you think tax aches PEPs an economy.

If you loot fornlers, of course that -- foreigners, of course that helps

you. There is no addition to the economy. This idea that somehow, if

you don't tax people more, you have lost. It is lost to the Luxembourg

exchequer. Successful economies are the ones that have the higher

proportion of revenue from the tax systems. In developing countries it

is about 13%. The clun Christian Aid report we are he leased last week,

we -- we released last week, there are approximatelies millions of

people that -- there are millions of people that go to bed hungry

tonight. Let's not make, none of us want be countries to be dependant on

hand outs or aid. We want countries to have the right systems and the

right kind of long-term hope in the system. It is not that good news is

that poverty isn't there. I want to see what the audience is saying.

This poor gentleman here - his hands have been up for ages.

I am a hospital porter and I pay my tax and I am on pittance and the

Government is destroying the NHS at the moment, but I would like to say

why don't we all pay our tax? Why doesn't everyone pay tax? I don't

really argue about paying my tax, but why don't we all?

APPLAUSE Hi. Good morning. Afternoon. People

keep talking about doling money out to the Government. The taxes should

be going towards building roads and bridges which make them transport

stuff to their business. Straight beside you?

corporations are behaving as they should do within a particular moral

framework. It is the Government that we need to lock at is immorally

taxing bedrooms of the poorest and disabled people and that's what I

find morally injust. I ask the corporations to pay their fair

share. I wanted to go back to your earlier

point. The sales made by the big organisations, but you were conflate

flating the fact that you don't pay tax on sales, you pay it on profits.

There is no point in saying that Amazon or Google make �2 billion

worth of sales and pay �2 million worth of prochltth th -- profit.

You are right. You were conflating two things, but the VAT lost to this

country is extraordinary through the activities of Amazon. They source

their products out of Luxembourg because the VAT rate is 3%. I never

buy of Amazon, that's why they charge low prices because they are

escaping 17% of VAT. The elephant in the room, who are these companies?

Starbucks, Google, Amazon. They are American companies. Imagine they

were Brazilian, Russian, Paraguayan. We should stop being afrightened of

Youngle Sam and the -- stop being frightened of uncle Sam. We should

do consumer boycotts. The idea that firms only contribute

to society by paying taxes is crazy. They offer goods for sale that

people buy. That's is -- that's a service. People talk about we are

losing money because we are not getting taxes. Are you losing money

because the tax rate on my income isn't 100%? It could be. Is all the

money I keep a loss to the country? This is the language that's being

used. Any tax that isn't collected is a loss. Is a burden. That's how

you will phrase it. Somebody up here said that people are being taxed on

their bedrooms. No, they're not. There is a restriction on the number

of bedrooms you are allowed to get paid for out of other people's

taxes. That isn't a tax on you. Right, you are receiving something

free from other people's taxes. This is being, there is an inversion

going on. Whereby any time I don't take something from you, I'm said,

you are being immoral because I'm not getting your stuff. It is a loss

to me a that I haven't taxed you more.

Emma, you didn't like that? everybody avoided their taxes, this

he system would fail. Countries would fall apart. Let me finish,

please. So the problem is that when companies are making choices to

really, really minimise and this is not minimising through transparent

business practises in line with the law, they are minimising through

legal loopholes, loopholes in the system that allow them to take

advantage and avoid as much tax as possible and governments by failing

to tighten up the law so it is not possible, of course, that's a moral

choice because somebody has to pay. So when riches individuals and big

multinationals are not paying, we are all paying. Somebody has to pick

up the tab. Richard? I would be much more

worried about this if I didn't know the rich Governments in the world

are sitting around in the OECD are sitting around trying to work out a

sensible reform. I doubt it would satisfy you. It won't address the

moral thing on which you are plain wrong. I think the under lining

anxiety about international tax is about to go through several years of

much improvement. So I think weigh could take the chill pill here.

the chill pill, he says! principles underlying that

conversation they are having is important. It is about the kind of

world we want to live in and the kind of country we want to live in.

It is no good what highing behind the rhetoric of corporations. We are

talking about real people and real people making the decisions. . ..

Happy to hide behind this piece of his rhetoric. I like it when Eric

Schmidt says when the Government sorts this out, which they ought

because it is a mess, we will pay up. But don't ask us to work out how

we volunteer and give money away because it is crazy. He doesn't say

that. The donors to parties are benefiting

from the tax avoidance. We have vested interests.

Are they made together? You said it! They are in it together. That's why

we haven't had the change over the years and there needs to be a

popular movement. People raising these questions can about morality

and the kind of society we live in and we need boycotts and we are

seeing it is starting to happen and that's why European leaders...

shall we go for our coffee? You are getting together and you

have not your moral nougsz and -- notions and I see want to live in