:00:29. > :00:35.Good morning. Welcome to the Big Questions live from Oasis Academy
:00:35. > :00:43.MediaCityUK in Salford. We are talking this morning about the film
:00:43. > :00:49.Zero Dark Thirty. It screenwriter it claims it is based on the story
:00:49. > :00:55.of how Osama Bin Laden was killed as told by various CIA sources.
:00:56. > :01:02.Controversially, a source suggests a key name was elicited through
:01:02. > :01:07.torture. A first big question: Is torture ever justified? This former
:01:07. > :01:12.SAS sergeant said if you had one of the 9/11 terrorists, it would have
:01:12. > :01:17.been right to have tortured him to save 3,000 lives. This former
:01:17. > :01:24.military lawyer says his experiences in Iraq taught him that
:01:24. > :01:30.torture did not work. Jesus said, blessed are you who are poor for
:01:30. > :01:34.yours is the kingdom of God. This might be some comfort to Britain's
:01:34. > :01:44.arrest, as living standards have dropped for the fifth year in
:01:44. > :01:49.succession. -- Britain's poorest. Our second big question this
:01:49. > :01:54.morning: Is it immoral to cut help to the poor? At charity organiser
:01:54. > :02:00.says demand for help is at record levels, with three-foot banks being
:02:00. > :02:03.opened every week. This Conservative MP says help should go
:02:03. > :02:11.to goes to need it most but nobody should be able to choose a life on
:02:11. > :02:17.benefits -- sued banks. -- a food banks. Welcome, everybody, to the
:02:17. > :02:23.Big Questions. Can I be honest with you? I am bad
:02:23. > :02:32.news. I am not your friend. I am not gonna help you. I am going to
:02:32. > :02:37.brekkie. Any questions? -- I will break Q. It is not just Americans
:02:37. > :02:41.who used questionable interrogation methods. Decades after the British
:02:41. > :02:47.Army was banned from using certain techniques in Northern Ireland, the
:02:47. > :02:50.same methods were used in Iraq. In 2003, Baha Moussa died after being
:02:50. > :02:56.subjected to serious violence at the hands of British troops and the
:02:57. > :03:02.government had to pay �2.8 million in compensation to his family and
:03:02. > :03:06.to nine other victims. Is torture ever justified? David Vance, you
:03:06. > :03:12.have been on the Northern Irish political scene a while and you
:03:12. > :03:17.have a blog. When is torture justified? Let's start with the
:03:17. > :03:21.word torture itself, what is torture? Let's consider that if we
:03:21. > :03:27.lived in Utopia where everyone was nice and kind and did not want to
:03:27. > :03:33.do evil things, there would not be any need for any activity. However,
:03:33. > :03:38.we don't. Life is not a John Lennon lyrics. When we are faced with evil
:03:38. > :03:42.people, people who say they love death like we love life, then it is
:03:42. > :03:47.important that we provide our security and intelligence forces
:03:47. > :03:51.with every asset they can use to extract intelligence that can save
:03:51. > :03:56.innocent lives because fundamentally the question is, is
:03:56. > :04:02.innocent life worth saving? I think the answer is overwhelmingly yes.
:04:02. > :04:08.APPLAUSE. David, you said in a blog that you thought the question was
:04:08. > :04:13.by Mr? Yes because I think torture conjures up the wrong impression.
:04:13. > :04:18.- was biased. I think the question should be, it is saving innocent
:04:18. > :04:24.lives justifiable? It is a different way of saying it?
:04:24. > :04:29.everybody would just be a green. Yes, but some people would say,
:04:29. > :04:35.because we all want to be virtuous and kind, of course torch is never
:04:35. > :04:40.justifiable, but the reality is that the word torture carried all
:04:40. > :04:46.kinds of implications. Robust interrogation, where nobody dies,
:04:46. > :04:52.where nobody arguably suffers physical pain. Is that justifiable?
:04:52. > :04:59.Absolutely. Torture is prohibited under international law and under
:04:59. > :05:03.domestic law, inhuman and degrading treatment is also prohibited. It is
:05:03. > :05:08.a no-go area. The argument that it is permitted and will produce
:05:08. > :05:12.result is a dangerous product of this film. Within our domestic
:05:12. > :05:16.environment, we interviewed terrorists in a police station. We
:05:16. > :05:22.do not talk to them. And yet we bring them to justice and that is
:05:22. > :05:27.how a civilised society should conduct itself. The people we are
:05:27. > :05:34.against are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. They think
:05:34. > :05:38.nothing of torturing, and I use the word in this sense specifically,
:05:38. > :05:44.journalist Daniel Pearl, how? By cutting his head off. That is
:05:44. > :05:53.torture. That does not mean we should conduct ourselves in the
:05:53. > :06:00.same way. We are much better than that. We are much better than them.
:06:00. > :06:03.If we straight into this moral grey area, we risk... He says it is
:06:03. > :06:09.morally black and white. David reckons it is what the Americans
:06:09. > :06:14.would probably call an no-brainer, this. I feel there is opposition to
:06:14. > :06:18.this and you expressed that. George Bush put it a certain way. He said
:06:18. > :06:23.it was justified in the "war on terror" to save many more lives and
:06:23. > :06:28.you may say that is a morally grey area but it is essentially the
:06:28. > :06:33.thought that the human rights of the many trump those of the few. Do
:06:33. > :06:38.you not by that? Not at all. We have clearly defined boundaries and
:06:38. > :06:41.they have been blurred by the George Bush regime. The UK have
:06:41. > :06:46.unfortunately got into bed with the wrong bed fellows and I think we
:06:46. > :06:50.have been degraded as a society. Imagine in Iraq, we behaved
:06:50. > :06:55.impeccably towards prisoners and we could contrasted with Abu Ghraib,
:06:55. > :07:02.we would have come out far better than we did at the end of the day.
:07:02. > :07:07.APPLAUSE. David, you will have a chance to say more. Former SAS man,
:07:07. > :07:12.involved in the rescue of the hostages at the Iranian embassy in
:07:12. > :07:20.1980 and served in the Falklands. When is torture justified? You have
:07:20. > :07:27.got to be 100% certain that the detainee is guilty or part of the
:07:27. > :07:32.big plot. How do you ascertain that? By a surveillance, by
:07:32. > :07:37.technical attack, by paid informers. Having said that, there is a far
:07:37. > :07:42.easier way of doing it. I did lots of undercover work in Northern
:07:42. > :07:48.Ireland in areas like Belfast and Londonderry. We never tortured
:07:48. > :07:55.anybody, special forces, in Northern Ireland, and yet we got so
:07:55. > :08:01.S-class information on tickets. -- a first-class information. On the
:08:01. > :08:06.big hits. How did we do that? We paid for it. We paid for
:08:06. > :08:10.information, informers. If you have your top informer in front of you,
:08:10. > :08:15.here is a million quid and a new identity in any part of the world,
:08:15. > :08:22.it is amazing the information you can get. What if you have God on
:08:22. > :08:27.your sight? It is easy to get information from somebody who knew
:08:27. > :08:31.about an impending atrocity because the police do it every day. They
:08:31. > :08:37.interviewed them under law. Many people are brought to justice and
:08:37. > :08:43.trial. They can be defeated through the rule of law and that is how we
:08:43. > :08:48.should conduct ourselves at all times. Torture is the lazy route to
:08:48. > :08:53.gaining information, as has just been said. Much information can be
:08:53. > :08:58.gone up intelligence work and the fact is, the blurring of the lines
:08:58. > :09:03.about can torture be used? How reliable is torture? The question
:09:03. > :09:09.that should be asked, does torture work? I have spent the last two
:09:09. > :09:13.years interviewing more than 50 victims of torture and going right
:09:13. > :09:18.back to the Second World War. The reality is, of torture does not
:09:19. > :09:24.work. This is Hollywood spin, the Osama Bin Laden story. In fact
:09:24. > :09:29.Senator John McCain, a victim of torture himself, went and saw the
:09:29. > :09:33.CIA chief at the time of Bin Laden's demise and said, was this
:09:33. > :09:39.brought about through torture? Did you gain this intelligence through
:09:39. > :09:43.torture? And he said no, it was old fashioned into events --
:09:43. > :09:48.intelligence-gathering. What we are seeing in this Kathryn Bigelow film
:09:48. > :09:53.is a glamorisation that Hollywood, I think, is in danger of embedding
:09:53. > :09:59.the idea that torture is acceptable in the minds of many. You don't
:09:59. > :10:04.think it works? Is it does not work. Once we go down that route, of
:10:04. > :10:14.torture, we open a can of worms, making it acceptable for other
:10:14. > :10:18.people to torture... APPLAUSE. If it did not work, wired
:10:18. > :10:23.with those in Muslim countries across the world use it so much --
:10:23. > :10:31.why would those? The irony is they are used by the West to do the
:10:31. > :10:34.dirty work. But the regimes over there? The Muslim Brotherhood stand
:10:34. > :10:38.accused of still doing it. Unfortunately Britain and America
:10:38. > :10:44.have lost the moral authority to be able to turn around to these
:10:44. > :10:49.countries and say, Don't torture, it is illegal, it is unacceptable.
:10:49. > :10:56.You said it can work. Have you seen it work? I have been tortured
:10:56. > :11:03.myself, I have had waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation,
:11:03. > :11:09.as part of the SAS selection. They let me come to my point. It did not
:11:09. > :11:15.work on me. I never felt like talking to the interrogator.
:11:15. > :11:20.Issue had no intelligence to give! -- but you had no intelligence to
:11:21. > :11:25.give! A let me finish by saying, one of the guys on my selection to
:11:25. > :11:29.start talking. He did not want to be waterboarding, he did not want
:11:29. > :11:34.to go into a freezing November night and all this kind of stuff,
:11:34. > :11:39.and he started talking to the interrogated, and this was only an
:11:39. > :11:43.exercise. He failed selection. will not work all the time but if
:11:43. > :11:48.interrogation can work some of the time and save some lives, that
:11:48. > :11:54.makes it worthwhile. We hear about the ticking timebomb and the
:11:54. > :12:02.thousands of lives that are at risk and we have to get the information
:12:02. > :12:07.out. Where is the evidence? second, one at a time. David Vance.
:12:07. > :12:11.If 9/11 or 7/7 could have been prevented by a robust intelligence
:12:11. > :12:15.gathering the information which would have helped the loss of the
:12:15. > :12:19.horrendous amount of life on those occasions, are you telling me that
:12:19. > :12:28.would not have been morally justifiable? Or here is your
:12:28. > :12:31.question. It is used by people who promote torture... If not, how
:12:31. > :12:36.would you elicit the information from a committed terrorist who has
:12:36. > :12:46.hoodie mackerel on his side and knows about an impending atrocity -
:12:46. > :12:47.
:12:47. > :12:52.- who has caught on his side -- who has God on his side? If you have a
:12:52. > :12:58.dyed-in-the-wool hardened terrorist, he is not going to talk. How do you
:12:58. > :13:03.know? How do you know? There is evidence from the Second World War,
:13:03. > :13:07.there or British agents captured by the Nazis and they were tortured
:13:07. > :13:12.and they had information about the D-Day landings, they could have
:13:12. > :13:17.given it all away, they had their fingernails pulled out, they were
:13:17. > :13:22.monstrously tortured, but they did not give that information. So it
:13:22. > :13:27.does not work? We have already heard some of these buzzwords,
:13:27. > :13:34.electrodes, Abu Ghraib, and so on. Let's unwrapped the debate because
:13:34. > :13:38.it is a very emotive debate. What happened at Abu Ghraib, that is not
:13:38. > :13:42.a part of the CIA methods that were approved during the Bush
:13:42. > :13:47.administration. It is a different kettle of fish to talk about some
:13:47. > :13:52.of these things and some of the things that the CIA did. We must be
:13:52. > :13:57.careful to categorise it properly. Let's start with the threat that
:13:57. > :14:01.affects us. It is not like the Northern Irish threat. It is a
:14:01. > :14:08.religious demotivated group of people who have shown, or 9/11 and
:14:08. > :14:12.7/7, that they aim for the maximum loss of life, so they would use a
:14:12. > :14:16.maximum nuclear device if they had it and fly planes into a tower
:14:17. > :14:21.again tomorrow if they could. The responsibility of the policy make
:14:21. > :14:25.it is when he wakes up on the morning of September 12th, is to
:14:25. > :14:29.prevent the people, in this case in America, from having to face such
:14:29. > :14:35.an attack again. You would think that the Bush administration work
:14:35. > :14:39.up and said, let's talk to all of them. They did not do that. If you
:14:39. > :14:42.look at the statements of the officials you can see there was a
:14:42. > :14:47.very robust debate inside the administration about what happened,
:14:47. > :14:50.that the timing of this attack and the immediate reaction afterwards
:14:50. > :14:55.was extremely precarious. They thought this might happen again the
:14:55. > :14:59.next day in Los Angeles, they had intelligence about a plot in the
:14:59. > :15:04.past it throughout the decade and so on, so we have to arm packet in
:15:04. > :15:08.this way, without giving any recourse to people who have been
:15:08. > :15:12.morally lax about it. There is an argument to be made that this must
:15:12. > :15:15.be looked at through the perspective of having to protect
:15:15. > :15:20.the population and when you have done that, then you can decide what
:15:20. > :15:26.is legal and what is not legal. Many of the claims are inaccurate.
:15:26. > :15:36.It is a debate, a lot of the information is still classified. It
:15:36. > :15:40.
:15:40. > :15:43.is not as settled as people make It's important to understand that
:15:43. > :15:47.this will continue. We are in the middle or perhaps at the beginning
:15:48. > :15:51.of a struggle against these kinds of atrocities. It is important we
:15:51. > :15:55.accurate about it and it is important we do not conflate these
:15:55. > :15:59.things in an attempt to slander some of the things that have been.
:15:59. > :16:04.I am grateful we are having this discussion, we need to very
:16:04. > :16:10.carefully look at these issues in the round and accurately. Steve,
:16:10. > :16:12.from Birmingham University? Just to add to this, there were widespread
:16:12. > :16:16.divisions in the Bush Administration, in the Justice
:16:17. > :16:21.Department and even the CIA. nobody would argue for what
:16:21. > :16:25.happened in Abu Ghraib. But you asked how to get... In just a
:16:25. > :16:30.second. You asked how to get evidence from a terrorist. There is
:16:30. > :16:34.on record a man who was the lead interrogator for the FBI,
:16:34. > :16:39.interrogating some of these suspects when the decision was made
:16:39. > :16:41.to take it over to the CIA. Eventually, the FBI ordered their
:16:41. > :16:46.investigators out because he said he did not want them to be
:16:46. > :16:50.complacent. But there is the most senior man on record, by the name
:16:50. > :16:59.of Rodriguez, he says he prevented the Plot Against Heathrow. He also
:16:59. > :17:02.denies that there was torture. The CIA inspector-general in 2004...
:17:02. > :17:08.not harness officials to your argument without making clear that
:17:08. > :17:13.the debate continues. The CIA inspector-general in 2004, this is
:17:13. > :17:16.a document you can find on the internet, he said the evidence is a
:17:17. > :17:24.subjective, he says that the CIA lacked knowledge about
:17:24. > :17:27.interrogation methods, about the suspects themselves. When they
:17:27. > :17:34.interrogated these people, if it didn't match what they expected,
:17:34. > :17:41.they said they must be lying. Heathrow plot is interesting. Dr
:17:41. > :17:45.Leger the mastermind behind it was obtained, the information, it was
:17:45. > :17:50.attained by torture. He could not be brought to court in this country
:17:50. > :17:55.because the information was obtained by torture. The history of
:17:55. > :18:00.the nation has been about threats. The Gunpowder Plot, Catholicism, a
:18:00. > :18:04.French invasion, a Spanish invasion, the IRA, it is now Islamic
:18:04. > :18:08.terrorists. I take my children to the Tower of London where they used
:18:08. > :18:17.to torture people and say, the state still does it. Think about it,
:18:17. > :18:26.that's an appalling thing to say in the 21st century. Let's be clear
:18:26. > :18:36.about this, they do not torture. Thank you, let's get Nicholas to
:18:36. > :18:36.
:18:36. > :18:43.justify that statement. I served in Iraq and I intervened in tech and -
:18:43. > :18:53.- interrogation techniques, techniques that would be
:18:53. > :18:58.categorised as torture if it was heard before the court again. The
:18:58. > :19:02.British government does torture by proxy. Members of MI5 go to
:19:02. > :19:06.Pakistan, they watch a man being tortured and feed questions to the
:19:06. > :19:11.person portraying them. That has got to stop. Why does that have to
:19:11. > :19:16.stop? You are making the argument that hour country has one primary
:19:16. > :19:21.responsibility, to keep its people say. The Government should do
:19:21. > :19:25.whatever possible to keep us safe. We face not a UK threat, a global
:19:25. > :19:30.threat. That is different, that is why a different response is
:19:30. > :19:36.required. It's illegal, it breaches human rights treaties and morally
:19:36. > :19:40.degrades those as a nation. That is why it has got to stop. Before we
:19:40. > :19:44.go to the audience, please put your hands up. We will go round and get
:19:44. > :19:48.people's comments. Even if we are talking about enhanced
:19:48. > :19:52.interrogation techniques, look at the Birmingham Six. Look at the
:19:52. > :19:57.Guildford Four. They said, the way I was being treated, I would have
:19:58. > :20:04.said anything. And he did. That is what it brings, enhanced to
:20:04. > :20:09.irrigation. -- interrogation. all cases? Is that the exceptional
:20:09. > :20:15.is that the norm? You want to make it stop. What you want to do is
:20:15. > :20:19.stop the terrorism. You want to prevent their atrocities. If you're
:20:19. > :20:22.having enhanced interrogation or torture, you just want the pain to
:20:22. > :20:25.stop so you say anything, that the danger. That suggests the
:20:25. > :20:31.intelligence services are steeper than will believe anything they are
:20:31. > :20:36.told. They are professional people. They are staffed with very adept,
:20:36. > :20:40.of professional people. Hands up in the audience. The lady over here?
:20:40. > :20:45.If they are so professional, surely they would be able to get the
:20:45. > :20:50.information in other ways? There is no need for torture, ever. Let's
:20:50. > :20:55.get the audience. Well, 12 months ago I probably would have said no,
:20:55. > :20:59.torture is not justified. In December last year, I was on
:20:59. > :21:04.holiday in New York and I actually went to ground zero and saw the
:21:04. > :21:09.memorial garden. I was there. Where the waterfall is, where the water
:21:09. > :21:18.goes in, around the edges there are 3000 names, 3000 people. It is very
:21:18. > :21:25.moving. Also, going into the museum, seeing the lead-up to the event. Is
:21:25. > :21:29.it justified? Well, after saying that, I would say certainly.
:21:29. > :21:34.depends what you mean by torture or punishment. Torture can come under
:21:34. > :21:39.punishment, can't it? Do you know what I mean? This is where we get
:21:39. > :21:44.back to the whole idea of enhanced interrogation. Yes, sir? I'd just
:21:44. > :21:47.like to say that one has to look at the ethical implications of torture.
:21:47. > :21:51.Certainly from an Islamic point of view, there is no justification for
:21:51. > :21:57.torture because the evidence you are going to get from it is not
:21:57. > :22:02.100% reliable. That can lead to damage to innocents, it can also
:22:02. > :22:06.damage hearts and minds. This is an important point. You're not only
:22:06. > :22:10.fighting terrorists, you are trying to win the hearts and minds of the
:22:10. > :22:17.Muslim world and the world at large. If you are going to carry out
:22:17. > :22:23.immoral acts, no doubt there may be some prevention of harmful acts,
:22:23. > :22:28.but that is very much subjective. Objectively,... But there is more
:22:28. > :22:33.torture perpetrated on Muslims by Muslim regimes? That's the point.
:22:33. > :22:40.That is not Islamic in any way. How can you justify immoral acts for
:22:40. > :22:45.the Prevention of further atrocities? You're making the
:22:45. > :22:49.suggestion that it is immoral to try to obtain intelligence to
:22:49. > :22:53.prevent terrorist atrocities. I think that is an oxymoron. It is
:22:53. > :23:00.obviously always correct to try and preserve innocent life. It is the
:23:01. > :23:10.priority of our government. How do you control the abuse? The public
:23:10. > :23:15.has a rudimentary knowledge of it. The people in charge of the
:23:15. > :23:19.captives can abuse and there is no check there. If you are going to
:23:19. > :23:23.degrade somebody and it spreads in the community, that will lead to
:23:23. > :23:30.more Osama Bin Ladens. What happened after his capture, look at
:23:30. > :23:34.North Africa, Syria, all of the... That is a very important point.
:23:34. > :23:38.That is an important point. I am sure you have considered this
:23:38. > :23:44.deeply. It relates to Northern Ireland as well. The recruitment
:23:44. > :23:47.sergeant? It's a deeply offensive, some of the pictures that came out
:23:47. > :23:51.of Iraq shocked us all. I don't think anyone would sign up to that
:23:51. > :23:55.in any form or shape. Some of the recent evidence of prisoners being
:23:55. > :24:05.stripped naked, threatened with being raped or hang it. Of course
:24:05. > :24:08.
:24:08. > :24:14.it is going to recruit people. -- 9/11 happened first. Are you tried
:24:14. > :24:21.to defend this sort of behaviour? Stripping prisoners naked? In a
:24:21. > :24:27.minute. Baha Mousa had dozens of injuries. Let's look at who did
:24:27. > :24:30.this. Donald Payne, he is a man involved in running the
:24:30. > :24:38.interrogation centre. That guy should have been no where near
:24:38. > :24:44.detainees. He was a violent belief. He was known -- bully. He was known
:24:44. > :24:49.to be... Up but there are more cases coming out, it has cost the
:24:49. > :24:55.UK �15 million in compensation. are not perfect, we do not live in
:24:55. > :24:59.Utopia. We live in reality. But we can aspire. Which is why torture is
:24:59. > :25:04.in the Gulf. The fact we have this debate is incredible in the first
:25:04. > :25:08.place. -- this is why torture is illegal. He says it is about saving
:25:08. > :25:16.lives. He has yet to come up with one single case of where thousands
:25:16. > :25:19.of lives or even one life was saved after torture. That's the challenge,
:25:19. > :25:24.come up with one single case when it has worked and thousands of
:25:24. > :25:28.lives have been saved. We have to ask ourselves, is every government
:25:28. > :25:32.in the world that uses robust interrogation wrong, and yet you
:25:32. > :25:35.are right? Is that what you are suggesting? You mention before
:25:36. > :25:40.there has to be some change in the way that we do this. That is
:25:40. > :25:44.something that you commented on. I agree with the lady there, do one
:25:44. > :25:49.not coming up with any evidence to say that it works. If it is going
:25:50. > :25:53.to work, how are we going to change how we get information? It is all
:25:53. > :26:00.very well that we feel it is morally wrong, it is incorrect or
:26:00. > :26:05.it is right. The point is that it is not working. How do you know?
:26:05. > :26:08.This lady here did a lot of research. She would not be might go
:26:08. > :26:12.to point for analysis! This whole question of if it works is the
:26:12. > :26:17.wrong question. It's the wrong kind of moral reasoning. Given that we
:26:17. > :26:20.all think that there is a good end, saving innocent life, the question
:26:21. > :26:25.is, are we justified in doing anything to do that? I don't think
:26:25. > :26:29.anyone would say that. We must draw the line somewhere. There are some
:26:29. > :26:39.things that are always wrong. You should not do them, even if you
:26:39. > :26:43.stand to gain a benefit from them. I think a perspective we have
:26:43. > :26:48.missed out is the torturer. One of the things I was thinking is, is
:26:48. > :26:53.this something I could ever wish my son would be? I can imagine God
:26:53. > :26:56.wishing somebody's purpose to be a soldier, to fight what is right, a
:26:56. > :27:00.policeman, all sorts of noble things, but I can't imagine anyone
:27:00. > :27:05.here would want their son to be a torturer. From a Christian
:27:05. > :27:12.perspective, does it tie in with the idea of the just walk, as
:27:12. > :27:19.articulated by Sir Augustine -- just war, as articulated by St
:27:19. > :27:28.Augustine? That American parodying, what would Jesus do? You cannot
:27:28. > :27:33.imagine Jesus getting the electrodes? -- paradigm. The ms
:27:33. > :27:38.Christian thing is to try to preserve the sanctity of human life.
:27:38. > :27:44.That is what the intention is, to preserving human life. Torture is a
:27:44. > :27:48.Christian thing to do? Your word torture, again. Saving life. That
:27:48. > :27:52.is the Christian thing to do. I'm not in the intelligence services,
:27:52. > :27:58.neither are you. But I can give you an example of what faulty
:27:58. > :28:05.intelligence can lead to in Iraq. That was got through faulty
:28:05. > :28:11.intelligence through a man tortured in Cairo. A Libyan man was tortured
:28:11. > :28:16.into saying, yes, Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda. That
:28:16. > :28:23.was given to Colin Powell. He said it was the lowest point of his
:28:23. > :28:28.career, when he stood up in the United Nations. George Orwell
:28:28. > :28:34.explained it very simply. 101. People sleep peaceably in their
:28:34. > :28:44.beds at night because they are prepared to do that. If you know
:28:44. > :28:50.
:28:50. > :28:58.better than George Orwell, there Torture is a tour of a Prussian and
:28:58. > :29:08.it will never be successful. -- of a Prussian. By using the tools they
:29:08. > :29:13.
:29:13. > :29:19.use themselves, torture, it will never work -- opression. You can
:29:20. > :29:26.get too close to torture. Degrees of Separation. Craig Murray was
:29:26. > :29:29.thrown out of the Foreign Office for refusing to be complicit in a
:29:29. > :29:33.intelligence coming back from his Pakistan through torture and we
:29:33. > :29:43.have a doctor that has been struck off because he would not intervene
:29:43. > :29:44.
:29:44. > :29:48.in the process. We have got to have this absolute prohibition. We do
:29:48. > :29:53.not condone torture in any shape or form, both as a state and a nation
:29:53. > :29:58.and as individuals. What is your strongest argument against it? Is
:29:58. > :30:04.it because it degrades us and is morally wrong or is it because it
:30:04. > :30:09.does not work? Which is your strongest card? It is illegal, it
:30:09. > :30:14.is morally degrading and it doesn't work, and that is it. Over a.
:30:14. > :30:24.APPLAUSE there we must leave it. If you have something to say about
:30:24. > :30:29.
:30:29. > :30:34.that debate, you can log on to the You can use our hashtag on Twitter.
:30:34. > :30:39.Also send us your views about our next big question: Is it immoral to
:30:39. > :30:46.cut help to the poor? If you would like to be in the audience at a
:30:46. > :30:52.future show, you can e-mail. We are in Leicester next Sunday, Cardiff
:30:52. > :30:59.on 10th February and in West London on the 17th.
:30:59. > :31:05.Yesterday was the launch of church in action's week of poverty against
:31:05. > :31:10.homelessness. The economy is heading for a triple dip recession.
:31:10. > :31:14.Inflation is running ahead of pay rises. In April, a new tougher
:31:14. > :31:18.benefit regime will begin. Last week a study by the Greater
:31:18. > :31:23.Manchester Poverty Commission found that one in five local residents on
:31:23. > :31:29.living in extreme poverty and need special measures to help them. So
:31:29. > :31:36.it is immoral to cut help to the poor? At the end of our last debate,
:31:36. > :31:41.we were talking about the Christian position. The MP for Elmet and
:31:41. > :31:46.Rothwell near Leeds, David Cameron fairly recently said the UK is a
:31:46. > :31:51.Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so. So things like
:31:51. > :31:56.the bedroom tax, breaking the link between benefits and inflation,
:31:56. > :32:04.putting a cap on benefits in big families. Of these measures
:32:04. > :32:08.Christian? -- of these measures? is to make sure that the poorest in
:32:08. > :32:14.society are given the support they need. The fact is the amount of
:32:14. > :32:18.money available has dwindled. It is to be brought in. That is why the
:32:18. > :32:23.fundamental principle of, should benefits go to the poorest or
:32:23. > :32:30.universally, so can people choose to live a life on benefits? I
:32:30. > :32:34.believe that is wrong. So overall there is a Christian perspective on
:32:34. > :32:38.this. Absolutely. We are one of the seven richest countries in the
:32:38. > :32:44.world and we need to be able to support the poorest in society. I
:32:44. > :32:48.am a huge believer in the welfare state. I want to make sure that the
:32:48. > :32:52.welfare state can continue to give the support it has given, that it
:32:52. > :33:00.has faith in it from the people outside, that it is fair and that
:33:00. > :33:03.the people who need it met -- need it most have that safety net.
:33:03. > :33:07.private member's bill mean people will not be able to spend their
:33:07. > :33:13.money on certain things, lottery ticket, Sky TV, cigarettes and
:33:13. > :33:17.alcohol. They will not be able to spend their money on those items.
:33:17. > :33:22.Tell us more. Yes, they would not be able to move the government
:33:22. > :33:28.given money on those items. The welfare state was brought in to
:33:28. > :33:33.make sure that people who lose their jobs, and tragically we have
:33:33. > :33:36.heard of companies like Blockbusters to have gone bust,
:33:36. > :33:41.people have gone out of work and 80 years ago this would have meant
:33:41. > :33:46.starvation on the street. It is right we have a welfare state that
:33:46. > :33:50.can say, here is his support, you have fallen on hard times. A but
:33:50. > :33:54.you cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes and a lottery ticket.
:33:54. > :34:00.Are those things going to stop people falling into poverty? I
:34:00. > :34:05.don't think so. I think the cashcard idea, the welfare card, is
:34:05. > :34:09.very objectionable. I was in Australia recently where this idea
:34:09. > :34:13.was originally introduced at Aboriginal people and it has now
:34:13. > :34:19.been rolled out to other poor groups. It is despised by the
:34:19. > :34:23.people who receive it. It is stigmatising the poor. The welfare
:34:23. > :34:27.state already treats people shamefully and it is for that
:34:28. > :34:33.reason, will benefit fraud is significant, but very small at 1
:34:33. > :34:37.billion, 17 billion goes unclaimed. Because people do not want to claim
:34:37. > :34:41.what they are entitled to and the system is too confusing. The
:34:41. > :34:46.problem is not that the welfare state is too generous. The problem
:34:46. > :34:50.is not that the welfare state targets the poor more. Quite the
:34:50. > :34:55.opposite. When David Cameron and George Osborne announced the cuts
:34:55. > :35:00.in 2010, they said very clearly these will be fed, we will make
:35:00. > :35:04.sure that the most honourable are protected -- they will be fair. If
:35:04. > :35:09.you analyse them, you will find that compared to an ordinary member
:35:09. > :35:18.of the population, somebody in poverty will receive five times
:35:18. > :35:21.more of a cut, although over �2,000 by 2015. A disabled person will
:35:21. > :35:26.receive nine times more of the burden. The people who are most
:35:26. > :35:30.severely cut, and people do not know this, are to people with very
:35:30. > :35:36.severe disabilities because they get hit by this double whammy.
:35:36. > :35:41.There is a 20% cut in benefits and a 33% cut in social care. Everybody
:35:41. > :35:47.receiving social care also receives benefits so they get this double
:35:47. > :35:53.attack. Most of the cuts are on benefits and social care, which
:35:53. > :35:57.only the most vulnerable receive. entirely agree with the statement
:35:57. > :36:02.that if you had a cash card for people claiming out-of-work
:36:02. > :36:06.benefits, it would stigmatise them. That is why it was convenient for
:36:06. > :36:11.the opponents to overlook the fact that it would be a card which
:36:11. > :36:16.everybody would have for all benefits paid by the government.
:36:16. > :36:20.People at the top of society, avoiding and evading taxes, they
:36:20. > :36:24.can buy whatever they want with their money. I have never said that
:36:25. > :36:30.I agree with that and we need to make extra effort to go out and get
:36:30. > :36:34.them. We are trying to move that system forward. It is morally
:36:34. > :36:39.repugnant of major organisations in this country, like Starbucks, to
:36:39. > :36:45.say we never made a profit in 15 years. That is patently untrue and
:36:45. > :36:51.that is immoral. That is because of the tax laws. Tax avoidance is
:36:51. > :36:56.perfectly legal, by the way. Let's clear that misnomer up.
:36:56. > :37:01.desperation of foodbanks. reality is, as we debate today more
:37:02. > :37:09.and more people find themselves with the basic choice, do I feed my
:37:09. > :37:13.family or do I hit my house? -- heat my house? Those people on
:37:13. > :37:18.benefits have the least resistance to any change on benefits so the
:37:18. > :37:23.effects upon them are maximised. I think it is a moral imperative that
:37:23. > :37:29.we treat the most memorable in society with respect, compassion
:37:29. > :37:33.and dignity. APPLAUSE. A what do you think about
:37:33. > :37:37.the welfare card? Concentrating people's mind on what they should
:37:37. > :37:43.be spending their welfare on? essence of poverty is a lack of
:37:43. > :37:47.choice and so people feel that, people feel that on a day-to-day
:37:47. > :37:52.basis they are being isolated and with the anxiety and the fear, and
:37:53. > :37:56.this is even before April begins with the benefit cuts coming in, so
:37:56. > :38:01.increasingly, and the Greater Manchester report showed us that.
:38:01. > :38:07.We know that. Most people feel that at a household love for, that it is
:38:07. > :38:13.getting harder. Rising food costs, rising fuel costs -- most people
:38:13. > :38:19.feel that at a household level. fundamental point, and I said this
:38:19. > :38:23.in my bill, that at no point have I talked about the amount of money
:38:23. > :38:29.people get. I am talking about how we can best use the money to make
:38:29. > :38:33.sure we support people properly. Deirdre Bounds, entrepreneur, what
:38:33. > :38:39.we would call fairly humble beginnings, and you have made it.
:38:39. > :38:44.You have spoken about the gift of desperation. What did you mean?
:38:44. > :38:49.When I started my business I was on housing benefit, I was on the dole
:38:49. > :38:54.and I am from an area with a benefits culture. There are two
:38:54. > :39:04.types of people, the really needy that do need benefits, and others
:39:04. > :39:04.
:39:04. > :39:09.who just lose this career on benefits -- live. When I was
:39:09. > :39:14.signing on, I was needy. I needed the safety net. But personally I
:39:14. > :39:18.thought, I don't want to live like this so I started my business in my
:39:18. > :39:24.home. What I cannot understand is why the government, perhaps you can
:39:24. > :39:30.help me here, I agree with it cuts... Or what is the gift of
:39:30. > :39:35.desperation? I don't want to go to foodbanks, I need to feed my family,
:39:35. > :39:43.my benefits have been cut, so why have to do something. I had to do
:39:43. > :39:49.something. You might say, there are no jobs. Every time I sent out my
:39:49. > :39:53.CV to 200 employees, I do not get a job. Why did not get a job I ever
:39:53. > :39:57.so I started my business from home. You can go on eBay. If the
:39:57. > :40:03.government put training into home- based businesses, so people can do
:40:03. > :40:08.things for themselves. Who are you feel really sorry for, it is not
:40:08. > :40:15.the families, it is that children. But children who are being brought
:40:15. > :40:21.up with no role models, in a culture of joblessness, they call
:40:21. > :40:25.it a poverty aspiration... You are confusing two issues. There are
:40:25. > :40:29.huge design flaws in the welfare state. If you think the car system
:40:29. > :40:34.has got some problems, you are right. But this question is about
:40:34. > :40:38.the cuts to welfare. The poorest people in this country are living
:40:39. > :40:44.on �8 a day. Are they going to be more likely to go and get a job
:40:44. > :40:49.when they are living on �7 a day? Of to Madrid, it is the taxpayer
:40:49. > :40:54.that is funding all of this and as we have heard, people in employment
:40:54. > :40:59.have taken cuts as well -- as we have heard. We have to be fair
:40:59. > :41:05.across society and everybody have to take a hit. The cost across
:41:05. > :41:11.society is small. 180 billion is benefits and pensions, an awful lot
:41:11. > :41:18.of money. 155 billion is paid straight back in taxes. The net
:41:18. > :41:25.cost of pension and benefits is 35 billion. That is what we spent
:41:25. > :41:31.fighting poverty and that is a very, very small amount. Good morning.
:41:31. > :41:35.What I find particularly immoral is the fact that in April,
:41:35. > :41:41.millionairess, people that end over a million pounds a year, will be
:41:41. > :41:44.getting a tax break of �40,000 -- people that earned over a million
:41:44. > :41:48.pounds the year. That is totally immoral when most people are
:41:48. > :41:56.struggling, that people who don't need any help whatsoever will get
:41:56. > :42:04.help. This is the political spin argument. It is the rate which
:42:04. > :42:09.comes in at �150,000. The fact is, what is the idea of income tax? It
:42:09. > :42:16.is to raise money for the government. The 50% income tax rate
:42:16. > :42:22.lost �7 billion out of the economy. That is disputed. The fact is, the
:42:22. > :42:27.uprating bill needed a couple of weeks ago will save the economy �4
:42:27. > :42:32.billion. If we had not lost that �7 billion by going to 50%, who
:42:32. > :42:36.perhaps would not have had to do that. Income tax moth generate the
:42:36. > :42:41.best revenues that it can. When people are multi-millionaires, they
:42:41. > :42:45.can easily move their money to somewhere else. You know who pays
:42:45. > :42:49.the most tax as a proportion of their income in this country? The
:42:49. > :42:59.lowest 10% of families that have a 45%...
:42:59. > :43:05.
:43:05. > :43:12.The burden of taxation is switching from the poorest to the richest.
:43:12. > :43:17.The graph is there, it is an ONS statistic. This government is
:43:17. > :43:23.taxing the rich more than the last one. They found in a report that
:43:23. > :43:30.the poor have a higher inflation rate due to disproportionately
:43:30. > :43:34.being hit because of VAT on fuel, Pat and it is disproportionately
:43:34. > :43:39.hitting those people most needy. -- fuel and power. How do you sort
:43:39. > :43:42.that out? Good question. We're talking about how much we give to
:43:42. > :43:46.the poor are. We ought to think on the other side of the equation,
:43:46. > :43:50.ways to reduce their cost of living. The Government has several policies
:43:50. > :43:53.in place that systematically raised the cost of living for the poor. We
:43:54. > :43:57.had a range of policies that have been in place that raised the cost
:43:57. > :44:01.of housing. People pay a much higher proportion of income for
:44:01. > :44:04.housing than they did 40 years ago. We have things like the Common
:44:04. > :44:09.Agricultural Policy, which raises food bills by about �20 per
:44:09. > :44:12.household. The energy policy is raising electricity and fuel costs
:44:12. > :44:16.well above what they would otherwise be because of the green
:44:16. > :44:19.agenda. We can help the poor significantly if we pursue an
:44:20. > :44:23.agenda of supply-side reforms, where we look to reduce the cost of
:44:23. > :44:29.living for the poor. That would make the benefits they do get go a
:44:29. > :44:32.lot further. We will bring Dennis in, he looks animated. Unless I am
:44:32. > :44:37.not understanding you correctly, you are saying we need to lower
:44:37. > :44:40.people's standards of living? the contrary, raise them. The cuts
:44:40. > :44:46.so far affect my family in a way that means there has been less work
:44:46. > :44:51.available to us. My income is now worth 10% less. We are paying more
:44:51. > :44:56.and more for shopping. Exactly, that is my point. I don't think
:44:56. > :44:59.lowering the standards of people at the lowest end of... Why are we not
:44:59. > :45:09.talking to the people making the most profits about why that profit
:45:09. > :45:11.
:45:11. > :45:21.is not being shared amongst more workers, whose body was far higher?
:45:21. > :45:26.
:45:26. > :45:31.Great the welfare card means that people will not be able to spend
:45:31. > :45:35.money on cigarettes, on lottery tickets, alcohol, but on the things
:45:35. > :45:40.that matter, what you think about that idea? I would be very worried
:45:40. > :45:44.about what his idea of what would matter might be. I think when you
:45:44. > :45:49.start dictating who can buy what with their money, I think we are
:45:49. > :45:53.getting into a controlling stake. Your numbers came one after the
:45:53. > :45:57.other, after the other. All I know is that my family is poorer. There
:45:57. > :46:01.are three disabled people sharing one job. We need the tax credits
:46:01. > :46:08.that we can get. What happens if they don't get the tax credits?
:46:08. > :46:12.What happens if they stop now? on, all families in these countries
:46:12. > :46:17.are poorer in times of austerity. Costs of living have gone up, wages
:46:17. > :46:21.have frozen. But the cost of living is disproportionately higher
:46:21. > :46:24.amongst poorer people? There is a fundamental issue of fairness,
:46:24. > :46:28.making sure it is always more valuable to going to work. You have
:46:28. > :46:32.to ask yourself the fundamental question, why should the benefits
:46:32. > :46:36.of people outside of work be going up double the amount of those in
:46:36. > :46:41.work? If the tax credits are cut, that is what I am trying to say to
:46:41. > :46:47.you. Is it right that tax credits are cut for people getting �60,000
:46:47. > :46:51.per year? You think that is what we are getting? Was it right that tax
:46:51. > :46:56.credits were going to people on that kind of money, all were the
:46:56. > :46:59.Government manipulating it for votes? I wanted to say that you are
:46:59. > :47:03.punishing the poor and you're basically saying that people on
:47:03. > :47:09.benefit spend the money on gambling, drink and smoking. I'm not saying
:47:09. > :47:15.that. It's not true. If it's not true, then it doesn't affect
:47:15. > :47:21.anybody. That's right, if you don't do what you have said, it's not a
:47:21. > :47:26.problem. I think the point is with these cards, and I don't know a lot
:47:26. > :47:29.about them, but people will find a way to buy what they want to buy.
:47:29. > :47:33.We are just taking time out of their day, while they work their
:47:33. > :47:37.way around yet another system that has been put in place for them.
:47:37. > :47:42.They will buy what they want to buy and find their way around this.
:47:42. > :47:47.it not the principle of it? Do you understand the principle? I do not
:47:47. > :47:51.support the principle of it. I think that if people are needy and
:47:51. > :47:55.need money, they should decide where they spend the money. If they
:47:55. > :47:58.spend their money on cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets, that
:47:58. > :48:07.is up to them and they and their family will suffer the consequences
:48:07. > :48:11.for that. The former Archbishop of Canterbury came out yesterday in
:48:11. > :48:14.favour of the benefits cap. We might want to talk about that and
:48:14. > :48:18.the bedroom tax, things that are causing consternation to some
:48:18. > :48:22.people. Lord Carey said that people feel resentment at handouts given
:48:22. > :48:28.to the long-term unemployed. It rewards fecklessness and
:48:28. > :48:35.irresponsibility. Is he right? he was my fear care, actually, in
:48:35. > :48:43.Durham. On this matter. -- he was my vicar. On this matter he is
:48:43. > :48:47.wrong. Is he propagating a myth? is. If you look at the poorest 10%
:48:47. > :48:52.of the population, just the data about those, as the point has been
:48:52. > :48:56.made, they are paying higher levels of tax and VAT. One of them is
:48:56. > :49:00.income tax and national insurance. These people are working, often
:49:00. > :49:07.they are working very low-paid jobs or very temporary jobs. This idea
:49:07. > :49:10.that there is a big benefit culture is completely false. You have it
:49:10. > :49:15.acknowledged how much we have raised the income tax threshold.
:49:15. > :49:25.Someone who works minimum wage has had their income tax halved under
:49:25. > :49:32.
:49:32. > :49:35.They will have more money because we have raised that level. You were
:49:35. > :49:40.in the situation where Church Action on Poverty turned it around
:49:40. > :49:44.for you and found to a job? I think it is going to have a negative
:49:44. > :49:48.effect on a lot of people, from children, we have already mentioned
:49:48. > :49:53.there are a lot of children living in poverty, 3.6 million are living
:49:53. > :49:57.in poverty in the UK at the moment. What is that number going to be
:49:57. > :50:01.once this comes into effect? It's not going to make it any better.
:50:01. > :50:05.Whether these cards come into effect or not, if people have
:50:05. > :50:11.addictions and habits, you are going to find their way to do that.
:50:12. > :50:16.The children will always suffer more. I keep hearing the word
:50:16. > :50:26.poverty being thrown around. It's not poverty, its relative poverty.
:50:26. > :50:31.
:50:31. > :50:35.Let's get that straight. �8 a day. The very poorest, for the bottom
:50:35. > :50:40.10% of families, published statistics, Office of National
:50:40. > :50:50.Statistics, the bottom 10% of families, after tax, �12 per day.
:50:50. > :50:50.
:50:50. > :50:56.You are saying it should be fare cuts across the board. It's been
:50:56. > :50:59.stated that with millionaires getting benefits, companies like
:50:59. > :51:05.Starbucks, massive multi-million- pound corporations that are not
:51:05. > :51:08.contributing to the UK and not paying the taxes. Maybe Starbucks
:51:08. > :51:14.could lead and we will create more unemployment and you will be happy?
:51:14. > :51:17.If they made their contribution, would we need to make those cuts?
:51:18. > :51:22.Today they are threatening to stop further investment in the country.
:51:22. > :51:25.Some fans have gone up? The point needs to be made that the vast
:51:25. > :51:32.majority of people in receipt of benefits are actually working as
:51:32. > :51:35.well. It is just that they need a top up. The problem with talking
:51:35. > :51:39.about the poor is that they have names and families, a lot of that
:51:39. > :51:47.is what we forget. If you look on the ground, these are real people
:51:47. > :51:51.in real situations. India state I am working in, there is a real
:51:51. > :51:54.harshness that has come over with the way that people treat people on
:51:54. > :51:59.benefits. It's really difficult for people and there is a division that
:51:59. > :52:05.has come into communities. This gentleman has had his hand up from
:52:05. > :52:09.the beginning. I think Alec's ideas are repugnant. I think at the next
:52:09. > :52:15.election, people will have something to say about it will stop
:52:15. > :52:19.they have something to say about it now, 75% agree with it. To have a
:52:19. > :52:24.card, not be able to have money to spend and use a card to buy food,
:52:24. > :52:30.it is repugnant. Not just a card. Whatever other money you have got,
:52:30. > :52:34.you can spend on what you like. benefit money. The point is, again,
:52:34. > :52:42.you are overlooking the fundamental point. Everybody, from the age of
:52:42. > :52:50.16 to retirement, any government benefit should be on a card.
:52:50. > :52:57.are explicitly saying that the people on benefits are saying that
:52:57. > :53:00.they are spending their money on lottery, booze, Sky and gambling?
:53:00. > :53:04.sign saying that some are. If you want to make sure it is going to
:53:04. > :53:09.where it is needed, the Government should step in and help that. You
:53:09. > :53:16.talk about the nanny state, isn't the welfare state a nanny state
:53:16. > :53:23.anyway? What about the bedroom tax? I listened to the debate on your
:53:23. > :53:27.show, I listened to people phoning in. People say, I have a child,
:53:27. > :53:31.they need their bedroom for when they come back from university.
:53:31. > :53:34.They are saying with their wages they cannot afford the �14 that
:53:34. > :53:38.will be taken away? I don't understand why the Government will
:53:38. > :53:42.not be honest and admit it is not saving as much money as it is very
:53:42. > :53:51.directing into chosen businesses and driving the labour market down
:53:51. > :53:55.as far as wages go. Most of these benefits go to people that actually
:53:55. > :54:00.in work. Economically, one of the effects of that is to drive down
:54:00. > :54:05.wages. It means employers can pay lower wages because they know the
:54:05. > :54:08.taxpayer is going to top the wages up. That is economics. This system
:54:09. > :54:13.we have created really bad incentives and traps people in
:54:13. > :54:17.poverty. Would any of us take a job if we knew that we would lose 80%
:54:17. > :54:23.or 90% of every pound that we earned in a marginal tax rate, what
:54:23. > :54:27.people on benefits face. This is what Lord Carey is getting at when
:54:27. > :54:32.he says it encourages irresponsibility and fecklessness?
:54:32. > :54:35.People are not being feckless, they are responding perfectly rationally
:54:35. > :54:38.to the incentives the system has created. We should not be angry
:54:38. > :54:43.with these people but the politicians that have created such
:54:43. > :54:48.a cocked up system of incentives. We need to get back to the
:54:48. > :54:56.fundamental point. It is a moral question. We are drifting away into
:54:56. > :55:03.the minutiae Ikea. Is it acceptable to actually -- to the minutiae,
:55:03. > :55:07.here. Is it acceptable to talk about the undeserving poor? Are we
:55:07. > :55:11.going down the that route? Is that morally acceptable? This is the
:55:11. > :55:15.kind of language that is implicit in the statements made. There is
:55:15. > :55:19.this pernicious undermining of people that are in poverty. At the
:55:19. > :55:23.same time, I would like to hear, if that is the language you wish to
:55:23. > :55:33.use, which you apply the same terminology and language to those
:55:33. > :55:34.
:55:34. > :55:37.Are they skivers or strivers? morning, you have not heard me use
:55:37. > :55:42.any of that language except when I said... George Osborne use that
:55:42. > :55:50.language. I'm talking about what I have said today, I only said it was
:55:50. > :55:53.morally repugnant for organisations like Starbucks to avoid tax. Surely,
:55:53. > :55:57.where we need to move to is that the Government takes less income
:55:57. > :56:01.tax from people in the first place, at the lowest end of work, in order
:56:01. > :56:08.to give it back to them. The flipside is that if that moves up,
:56:08. > :56:12.the less benefits people will get. Back to what you were saying about
:56:12. > :56:15.people making a decision based on what they can get money wise from
:56:15. > :56:20.benefits. It's not all about the money. For some people, it does
:56:21. > :56:24.work out that they might be �30 better off if they going to work.
:56:24. > :56:27.But there are other implications there. They are not going to be
:56:27. > :56:30.able to see their children, they cannot be with their family, they
:56:31. > :56:35.are going to have a lot of stress, pressure of work. There are a lot
:56:35. > :56:38.of factors people take into account, worry and have fears about. It's
:56:38. > :56:43.not that people choose to be on benefits because the money is great,
:56:43. > :56:52.it's not. It's a struggle. It's difficult. But you get to beat with
:56:52. > :56:59.your family. Some of them actually prefer to milk the benefits system
:56:59. > :57:03.for what they can get from it. They get it in many different guises.
:57:03. > :57:07.There might be huge amounts of them, they might not, but there is too
:57:07. > :57:17.many. The argument would be that it disproportionately punished his...
:57:17. > :57:21.Do you want to commend? How many of you arguing this side of it have
:57:21. > :57:25.lived on �35 per week? Was it easy for you? I've worked on factory
:57:25. > :57:30.floors, I have fitted kitchens and bathrooms... While you were on
:57:30. > :57:35.benefits? Are you sure that that was legal? I was on benefits, but
:57:35. > :57:39.then I found a job as quickly as I could. So why are you demonising
:57:39. > :57:44.people that have been there as well? You are doing the
:57:44. > :57:47.demonisation. Coming back to what this lady was saying, what people
:57:47. > :57:52.go out to work when they had children? They might have elderly
:57:52. > :57:56.people that they need to look after. The point is, we all have that.
:57:56. > :58:01.Lots of people that go out to work have to juggle many different
:58:01. > :58:04.things and they find it really difficult. So, why should it be any
:58:04. > :58:08.different for any body that is on benefits? Why should they not say,
:58:08. > :58:13.you know what, it will be difficult, maybe granny has to look after the
:58:13. > :58:17.kids. The answer is the term poverty trap. We need to understand
:58:17. > :58:21.that. The people I work with are trapped. We need to do something.