Episode 4 The Big Questions

Good morning. Welcome to the Big Questions live from Oasis Academy

MediaCityUK in Salford. We are talking this morning about the film

Zero Dark Thirty. It screenwriter it claims it is based on the story

of how Osama Bin Laden was killed as told by various CIA sources.

Controversially, a source suggests a key name was elicited through

torture. A first big question: Is torture ever justified? This former

SAS sergeant said if you had one of the 9/11 terrorists, it would have

been right to have tortured him to save 3,000 lives. This former

military lawyer says his experiences in Iraq taught him that

torture did not work. Jesus said, blessed are you who are poor for

yours is the kingdom of God. This might be some comfort to Britain's

arrest, as living standards have dropped for the fifth year in

succession. -- Britain's poorest. Our second big question this

morning: Is it immoral to cut help to the poor? At charity organiser

says demand for help is at record levels, with three-foot banks being

opened every week. This Conservative MP says help should go

to goes to need it most but nobody should be able to choose a life on

benefits -- sued banks. -- a food banks. Welcome, everybody, to the

Big Questions. Can I be honest with you? I am bad

news. I am not your friend. I am not gonna help you. I am going to

brekkie. Any questions? -- I will break Q. It is not just Americans

who used questionable interrogation methods. Decades after the British

Army was banned from using certain techniques in Northern Ireland, the

same methods were used in Iraq. In 2003, Baha Moussa died after being

subjected to serious violence at the hands of British troops and the

government had to pay �2.8 million in compensation to his family and

to nine other victims. Is torture ever justified? David Vance, you

have been on the Northern Irish political scene a while and you

have a blog. When is torture justified? Let's start with the

word torture itself, what is torture? Let's consider that if we

lived in Utopia where everyone was nice and kind and did not want to

do evil things, there would not be any need for any activity. However,

we don't. Life is not a John Lennon lyrics. When we are faced with evil

people, people who say they love death like we love life, then it is

important that we provide our security and intelligence forces

with every asset they can use to extract intelligence that can save

innocent lives because fundamentally the question is, is

innocent life worth saving? I think the answer is overwhelmingly yes.

APPLAUSE. David, you said in a blog that you thought the question was

by Mr? Yes because I think torture conjures up the wrong impression.

- was biased. I think the question should be, it is saving innocent

lives justifiable? It is a different way of saying it?

everybody would just be a green. Yes, but some people would say,

because we all want to be virtuous and kind, of course torch is never

justifiable, but the reality is that the word torture carried all

kinds of implications. Robust interrogation, where nobody dies,

where nobody arguably suffers physical pain. Is that justifiable?

Absolutely. Torture is prohibited under international law and under

domestic law, inhuman and degrading treatment is also prohibited. It is

a no-go area. The argument that it is permitted and will produce

result is a dangerous product of this film. Within our domestic

environment, we interviewed terrorists in a police station. We

do not talk to them. And yet we bring them to justice and that is

how a civilised society should conduct itself. The people we are

against are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. They think

nothing of torturing, and I use the word in this sense specifically,

journalist Daniel Pearl, how? By cutting his head off. That is

torture. That does not mean we should conduct ourselves in the

same way. We are much better than that. We are much better than them.

If we straight into this moral grey area, we risk... He says it is

morally black and white. David reckons it is what the Americans

would probably call an no-brainer, this. I feel there is opposition to

this and you expressed that. George Bush put it a certain way. He said

it was justified in the "war on terror" to save many more lives and

you may say that is a morally grey area but it is essentially the

thought that the human rights of the many trump those of the few. Do

you not by that? Not at all. We have clearly defined boundaries and

they have been blurred by the George Bush regime. The UK have

unfortunately got into bed with the wrong bed fellows and I think we

have been degraded as a society. Imagine in Iraq, we behaved

impeccably towards prisoners and we could contrasted with Abu Ghraib,

we would have come out far better than we did at the end of the day.

APPLAUSE. David, you will have a chance to say more. Former SAS man,

involved in the rescue of the hostages at the Iranian embassy in

1980 and served in the Falklands. When is torture justified? You have

got to be 100% certain that the detainee is guilty or part of the

big plot. How do you ascertain that? By a surveillance, by

technical attack, by paid informers. Having said that, there is a far

easier way of doing it. I did lots of undercover work in Northern

Ireland in areas like Belfast and Londonderry. We never tortured

anybody, special forces, in Northern Ireland, and yet we got so

S-class information on tickets. -- a first-class information. On the

big hits. How did we do that? We paid for it. We paid for

information, informers. If you have your top informer in front of you,

here is a million quid and a new identity in any part of the world,

it is amazing the information you can get. What if you have God on

your sight? It is easy to get information from somebody who knew

about an impending atrocity because the police do it every day. They

interviewed them under law. Many people are brought to justice and

trial. They can be defeated through the rule of law and that is how we

should conduct ourselves at all times. Torture is the lazy route to

gaining information, as has just been said. Much information can be

gone up intelligence work and the fact is, the blurring of the lines

about can torture be used? How reliable is torture? The question

that should be asked, does torture work? I have spent the last two

years interviewing more than 50 victims of torture and going right

back to the Second World War. The reality is, of torture does not

work. This is Hollywood spin, the Osama Bin Laden story. In fact

Senator John McCain, a victim of torture himself, went and saw the

CIA chief at the time of Bin Laden's demise and said, was this

brought about through torture? Did you gain this intelligence through

torture? And he said no, it was old fashioned into events --

intelligence-gathering. What we are seeing in this Kathryn Bigelow film

is a glamorisation that Hollywood, I think, is in danger of embedding

the idea that torture is acceptable in the minds of many. You don't

think it works? Is it does not work. Once we go down that route, of

torture, we open a can of worms, making it acceptable for other

people to torture... APPLAUSE. If it did not work, wired

with those in Muslim countries across the world use it so much --

why would those? The irony is they are used by the West to do the

dirty work. But the regimes over there? The Muslim Brotherhood stand

accused of still doing it. Unfortunately Britain and America

have lost the moral authority to be able to turn around to these

countries and say, Don't torture, it is illegal, it is unacceptable.

You said it can work. Have you seen it work? I have been tortured

myself, I have had waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation,

as part of the SAS selection. They let me come to my point. It did not

work on me. I never felt like talking to the interrogator.

Issue had no intelligence to give! -- but you had no intelligence to

give! A let me finish by saying, one of the guys on my selection to

start talking. He did not want to be waterboarding, he did not want

to go into a freezing November night and all this kind of stuff,

and he started talking to the interrogated, and this was only an

exercise. He failed selection. will not work all the time but if

interrogation can work some of the time and save some lives, that

makes it worthwhile. We hear about the ticking timebomb and the

thousands of lives that are at risk and we have to get the information

out. Where is the evidence? second, one at a time. David Vance.

If 9/11 or 7/7 could have been prevented by a robust intelligence

gathering the information which would have helped the loss of the

horrendous amount of life on those occasions, are you telling me that

would not have been morally justifiable? Or here is your

question. It is used by people who promote torture... If not, how

would you elicit the information from a committed terrorist who has

hoodie mackerel on his side and knows about an impending atrocity -

- who has caught on his side -- who has God on his side? If you have a

dyed-in-the-wool hardened terrorist, he is not going to talk. How do you

know? How do you know? There is evidence from the Second World War,

there or British agents captured by the Nazis and they were tortured

and they had information about the D-Day landings, they could have

given it all away, they had their fingernails pulled out, they were

monstrously tortured, but they did not give that information. So it

does not work? We have already heard some of these buzzwords,

electrodes, Abu Ghraib, and so on. Let's unwrapped the debate because

it is a very emotive debate. What happened at Abu Ghraib, that is not

a part of the CIA methods that were approved during the Bush

administration. It is a different kettle of fish to talk about some

of these things and some of the things that the CIA did. We must be

careful to categorise it properly. Let's start with the threat that

affects us. It is not like the Northern Irish threat. It is a

religious demotivated group of people who have shown, or 9/11 and

7/7, that they aim for the maximum loss of life, so they would use a

maximum nuclear device if they had it and fly planes into a tower

again tomorrow if they could. The responsibility of the policy make

it is when he wakes up on the morning of September 12th, is to

prevent the people, in this case in America, from having to face such

an attack again. You would think that the Bush administration work

up and said, let's talk to all of them. They did not do that. If you

look at the statements of the officials you can see there was a

very robust debate inside the administration about what happened,

that the timing of this attack and the immediate reaction afterwards

was extremely precarious. They thought this might happen again the

next day in Los Angeles, they had intelligence about a plot in the

past it throughout the decade and so on, so we have to arm packet in

this way, without giving any recourse to people who have been

morally lax about it. There is an argument to be made that this must

be looked at through the perspective of having to protect

the population and when you have done that, then you can decide what

is legal and what is not legal. Many of the claims are inaccurate.

It is a debate, a lot of the information is still classified. It

is not as settled as people make It's important to understand that

this will continue. We are in the middle or perhaps at the beginning

of a struggle against these kinds of atrocities. It is important we

accurate about it and it is important we do not conflate these

things in an attempt to slander some of the things that have been.

I am grateful we are having this discussion, we need to very

carefully look at these issues in the round and accurately. Steve,

from Birmingham University? Just to add to this, there were widespread

divisions in the Bush Administration, in the Justice

Department and even the CIA. nobody would argue for what

happened in Abu Ghraib. But you asked how to get... In just a

second. You asked how to get evidence from a terrorist. There is

on record a man who was the lead interrogator for the FBI,

interrogating some of these suspects when the decision was made

to take it over to the CIA. Eventually, the FBI ordered their

investigators out because he said he did not want them to be

complacent. But there is the most senior man on record, by the name

of Rodriguez, he says he prevented the Plot Against Heathrow. He also

denies that there was torture. The CIA inspector-general in 2004...

not harness officials to your argument without making clear that

the debate continues. The CIA inspector-general in 2004, this is

a document you can find on the internet, he said the evidence is a

subjective, he says that the CIA lacked knowledge about

interrogation methods, about the suspects themselves. When they

interrogated these people, if it didn't match what they expected,

they said they must be lying. Heathrow plot is interesting. Dr

Leger the mastermind behind it was obtained, the information, it was

attained by torture. He could not be brought to court in this country

because the information was obtained by torture. The history of

the nation has been about threats. The Gunpowder Plot, Catholicism, a

French invasion, a Spanish invasion, the IRA, it is now Islamic

terrorists. I take my children to the Tower of London where they used

to torture people and say, the state still does it. Think about it,

that's an appalling thing to say in the 21st century. Let's be clear

about this, they do not torture. Thank you, let's get Nicholas to

justify that statement. I served in Iraq and I intervened in tech and -

- interrogation techniques, techniques that would be

categorised as torture if it was heard before the court again. The

British government does torture by proxy. Members of MI5 go to

Pakistan, they watch a man being tortured and feed questions to the

person portraying them. That has got to stop. Why does that have to

stop? You are making the argument that hour country has one primary

responsibility, to keep its people say. The Government should do

whatever possible to keep us safe. We face not a UK threat, a global

threat. That is different, that is why a different response is

required. It's illegal, it breaches human rights treaties and morally

degrades those as a nation. That is why it has got to stop. Before we

go to the audience, please put your hands up. We will go round and get

people's comments. Even if we are talking about enhanced

interrogation techniques, look at the Birmingham Six. Look at the

Guildford Four. They said, the way I was being treated, I would have

said anything. And he did. That is what it brings, enhanced to

irrigation. -- interrogation. all cases? Is that the exceptional

is that the norm? You want to make it stop. What you want to do is

stop the terrorism. You want to prevent their atrocities. If you're

having enhanced interrogation or torture, you just want the pain to

stop so you say anything, that the danger. That suggests the

intelligence services are steeper than will believe anything they are

told. They are professional people. They are staffed with very adept,

of professional people. Hands up in the audience. The lady over here?

If they are so professional, surely they would be able to get the

information in other ways? There is no need for torture, ever. Let's

get the audience. Well, 12 months ago I probably would have said no,

torture is not justified. In December last year, I was on

holiday in New York and I actually went to ground zero and saw the

memorial garden. I was there. Where the waterfall is, where the water

goes in, around the edges there are 3000 names, 3000 people. It is very

moving. Also, going into the museum, seeing the lead-up to the event. Is

it justified? Well, after saying that, I would say certainly.

depends what you mean by torture or punishment. Torture can come under

punishment, can't it? Do you know what I mean? This is where we get

back to the whole idea of enhanced interrogation. Yes, sir? I'd just

like to say that one has to look at the ethical implications of torture.

Certainly from an Islamic point of view, there is no justification for

torture because the evidence you are going to get from it is not

100% reliable. That can lead to damage to innocents, it can also

damage hearts and minds. This is an important point. You're not only

fighting terrorists, you are trying to win the hearts and minds of the

Muslim world and the world at large. If you are going to carry out

immoral acts, no doubt there may be some prevention of harmful acts,

but that is very much subjective. Objectively,... But there is more

torture perpetrated on Muslims by Muslim regimes? That's the point.

That is not Islamic in any way. How can you justify immoral acts for

the Prevention of further atrocities? You're making the

suggestion that it is immoral to try to obtain intelligence to

prevent terrorist atrocities. I think that is an oxymoron. It is

obviously always correct to try and preserve innocent life. It is the

priority of our government. How do you control the abuse? The public

has a rudimentary knowledge of it. The people in charge of the

captives can abuse and there is no check there. If you are going to

degrade somebody and it spreads in the community, that will lead to

more Osama Bin Ladens. What happened after his capture, look at

North Africa, Syria, all of the... That is a very important point.

That is an important point. I am sure you have considered this

deeply. It relates to Northern Ireland as well. The recruitment

sergeant? It's a deeply offensive, some of the pictures that came out

of Iraq shocked us all. I don't think anyone would sign up to that

in any form or shape. Some of the recent evidence of prisoners being

stripped naked, threatened with being raped or hang it. Of course

it is going to recruit people. -- 9/11 happened first. Are you tried

to defend this sort of behaviour? Stripping prisoners naked? In a

minute. Baha Mousa had dozens of injuries. Let's look at who did

this. Donald Payne, he is a man involved in running the

interrogation centre. That guy should have been no where near

detainees. He was a violent belief. He was known -- bully. He was known

to be... Up but there are more cases coming out, it has cost the

UK �15 million in compensation. are not perfect, we do not live in

Utopia. We live in reality. But we can aspire. Which is why torture is

in the Gulf. The fact we have this debate is incredible in the first

place. -- this is why torture is illegal. He says it is about saving

lives. He has yet to come up with one single case of where thousands

of lives or even one life was saved after torture. That's the challenge,

come up with one single case when it has worked and thousands of

lives have been saved. We have to ask ourselves, is every government

in the world that uses robust interrogation wrong, and yet you

are right? Is that what you are suggesting? You mention before

there has to be some change in the way that we do this. That is

something that you commented on. I agree with the lady there, do one

not coming up with any evidence to say that it works. If it is going

to work, how are we going to change how we get information? It is all

very well that we feel it is morally wrong, it is incorrect or

it is right. The point is that it is not working. How do you know?

This lady here did a lot of research. She would not be might go

to point for analysis! This whole question of if it works is the

wrong question. It's the wrong kind of moral reasoning. Given that we

all think that there is a good end, saving innocent life, the question

is, are we justified in doing anything to do that? I don't think

anyone would say that. We must draw the line somewhere. There are some

things that are always wrong. You should not do them, even if you

stand to gain a benefit from them. I think a perspective we have

missed out is the torturer. One of the things I was thinking is, is

this something I could ever wish my son would be? I can imagine God

wishing somebody's purpose to be a soldier, to fight what is right, a

policeman, all sorts of noble things, but I can't imagine anyone

here would want their son to be a torturer. From a Christian

perspective, does it tie in with the idea of the just walk, as

articulated by Sir Augustine -- just war, as articulated by St

Augustine? That American parodying, what would Jesus do? You cannot

imagine Jesus getting the electrodes? -- paradigm. The ms

Christian thing is to try to preserve the sanctity of human life.

That is what the intention is, to preserving human life. Torture is a

Christian thing to do? Your word torture, again. Saving life. That

is the Christian thing to do. I'm not in the intelligence services,

neither are you. But I can give you an example of what faulty

intelligence can lead to in Iraq. That was got through faulty

intelligence through a man tortured in Cairo. A Libyan man was tortured

into saying, yes, Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda. That

was given to Colin Powell. He said it was the lowest point of his

career, when he stood up in the United Nations. George Orwell

explained it very simply. 101. People sleep peaceably in their

beds at night because they are prepared to do that. If you know

better than George Orwell, there Torture is a tour of a Prussian and

it will never be successful. -- of a Prussian. By using the tools they

use themselves, torture, it will never work -- opression. You can

get too close to torture. Degrees of Separation. Craig Murray was

thrown out of the Foreign Office for refusing to be complicit in a

intelligence coming back from his Pakistan through torture and we

have a doctor that has been struck off because he would not intervene

in the process. We have got to have this absolute prohibition. We do

not condone torture in any shape or form, both as a state and a nation

and as individuals. What is your strongest argument against it? Is

it because it degrades us and is morally wrong or is it because it

does not work? Which is your strongest card? It is illegal, it

is morally degrading and it doesn't work, and that is it. Over a.

APPLAUSE there we must leave it. If you have something to say about

that debate, you can log on to the You can use our hashtag on Twitter.

Also send us your views about our next big question: Is it immoral to

cut help to the poor? If you would like to be in the audience at a

future show, you can e-mail. We are in Leicester next Sunday, Cardiff

on 10th February and in West London on the 17th.

Yesterday was the launch of church in action's week of poverty against

homelessness. The economy is heading for a triple dip recession.

Inflation is running ahead of pay rises. In April, a new tougher

benefit regime will begin. Last week a study by the Greater

Manchester Poverty Commission found that one in five local residents on

living in extreme poverty and need special measures to help them. So

it is immoral to cut help to the poor? At the end of our last debate,

we were talking about the Christian position. The MP for Elmet and

Rothwell near Leeds, David Cameron fairly recently said the UK is a

Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so. So things like

the bedroom tax, breaking the link between benefits and inflation,

putting a cap on benefits in big families. Of these measures

Christian? -- of these measures? is to make sure that the poorest in

society are given the support they need. The fact is the amount of

money available has dwindled. It is to be brought in. That is why the

fundamental principle of, should benefits go to the poorest or

universally, so can people choose to live a life on benefits? I

believe that is wrong. So overall there is a Christian perspective on

this. Absolutely. We are one of the seven richest countries in the

world and we need to be able to support the poorest in society. I

am a huge believer in the welfare state. I want to make sure that the

welfare state can continue to give the support it has given, that it

has faith in it from the people outside, that it is fair and that

the people who need it met -- need it most have that safety net.

private member's bill mean people will not be able to spend their

money on certain things, lottery ticket, Sky TV, cigarettes and

alcohol. They will not be able to spend their money on those items.

Tell us more. Yes, they would not be able to move the government

given money on those items. The welfare state was brought in to

make sure that people who lose their jobs, and tragically we have

heard of companies like Blockbusters to have gone bust,

people have gone out of work and 80 years ago this would have meant

starvation on the street. It is right we have a welfare state that

can say, here is his support, you have fallen on hard times. A but

you cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes and a lottery ticket.

Are those things going to stop people falling into poverty? I

don't think so. I think the cashcard idea, the welfare card, is

very objectionable. I was in Australia recently where this idea

was originally introduced at Aboriginal people and it has now

been rolled out to other poor groups. It is despised by the

people who receive it. It is stigmatising the poor. The welfare

state already treats people shamefully and it is for that

reason, will benefit fraud is significant, but very small at 1

billion, 17 billion goes unclaimed. Because people do not want to claim

what they are entitled to and the system is too confusing. The

problem is not that the welfare state is too generous. The problem

is not that the welfare state targets the poor more. Quite the

opposite. When David Cameron and George Osborne announced the cuts

in 2010, they said very clearly these will be fed, we will make

sure that the most honourable are protected -- they will be fair. If

you analyse them, you will find that compared to an ordinary member

of the population, somebody in poverty will receive five times

more of a cut, although over �2,000 by 2015. A disabled person will

receive nine times more of the burden. The people who are most

severely cut, and people do not know this, are to people with very

severe disabilities because they get hit by this double whammy.

There is a 20% cut in benefits and a 33% cut in social care. Everybody

receiving social care also receives benefits so they get this double

attack. Most of the cuts are on benefits and social care, which

only the most vulnerable receive. entirely agree with the statement

that if you had a cash card for people claiming out-of-work

benefits, it would stigmatise them. That is why it was convenient for

the opponents to overlook the fact that it would be a card which

everybody would have for all benefits paid by the government.

People at the top of society, avoiding and evading taxes, they

can buy whatever they want with their money. I have never said that

I agree with that and we need to make extra effort to go out and get

them. We are trying to move that system forward. It is morally

repugnant of major organisations in this country, like Starbucks, to

say we never made a profit in 15 years. That is patently untrue and

that is immoral. That is because of the tax laws. Tax avoidance is

perfectly legal, by the way. Let's clear that misnomer up.

desperation of foodbanks. reality is, as we debate today more

and more people find themselves with the basic choice, do I feed my

family or do I hit my house? -- heat my house? Those people on

benefits have the least resistance to any change on benefits so the

effects upon them are maximised. I think it is a moral imperative that

we treat the most memorable in society with respect, compassion

and dignity. APPLAUSE. A what do you think about

the welfare card? Concentrating people's mind on what they should

be spending their welfare on? essence of poverty is a lack of

choice and so people feel that, people feel that on a day-to-day

basis they are being isolated and with the anxiety and the fear, and

this is even before April begins with the benefit cuts coming in, so

increasingly, and the Greater Manchester report showed us that.

We know that. Most people feel that at a household love for, that it is

getting harder. Rising food costs, rising fuel costs -- most people

feel that at a household level. fundamental point, and I said this

in my bill, that at no point have I talked about the amount of money

people get. I am talking about how we can best use the money to make

sure we support people properly. Deirdre Bounds, entrepreneur, what

we would call fairly humble beginnings, and you have made it.

You have spoken about the gift of desperation. What did you mean?

When I started my business I was on housing benefit, I was on the dole

and I am from an area with a benefits culture. There are two

types of people, the really needy that do need benefits, and others

who just lose this career on benefits -- live. When I was

signing on, I was needy. I needed the safety net. But personally I

thought, I don't want to live like this so I started my business in my

home. What I cannot understand is why the government, perhaps you can

help me here, I agree with it cuts... Or what is the gift of

desperation? I don't want to go to foodbanks, I need to feed my family,

my benefits have been cut, so why have to do something. I had to do

something. You might say, there are no jobs. Every time I sent out my

CV to 200 employees, I do not get a job. Why did not get a job I ever

so I started my business from home. You can go on eBay. If the

government put training into home- based businesses, so people can do

things for themselves. Who are you feel really sorry for, it is not

the families, it is that children. But children who are being brought

up with no role models, in a culture of joblessness, they call

it a poverty aspiration... You are confusing two issues. There are

huge design flaws in the welfare state. If you think the car system

has got some problems, you are right. But this question is about

the cuts to welfare. The poorest people in this country are living

on �8 a day. Are they going to be more likely to go and get a job

when they are living on �7 a day? Of to Madrid, it is the taxpayer

that is funding all of this and as we have heard, people in employment

have taken cuts as well -- as we have heard. We have to be fair

across society and everybody have to take a hit. The cost across

society is small. 180 billion is benefits and pensions, an awful lot

of money. 155 billion is paid straight back in taxes. The net

cost of pension and benefits is 35 billion. That is what we spent

fighting poverty and that is a very, very small amount. Good morning.

What I find particularly immoral is the fact that in April,

millionairess, people that end over a million pounds a year, will be

getting a tax break of �40,000 -- people that earned over a million

pounds the year. That is totally immoral when most people are

struggling, that people who don't need any help whatsoever will get

help. This is the political spin argument. It is the rate which

comes in at �150,000. The fact is, what is the idea of income tax? It

is to raise money for the government. The 50% income tax rate

lost �7 billion out of the economy. That is disputed. The fact is, the

uprating bill needed a couple of weeks ago will save the economy �4

billion. If we had not lost that �7 billion by going to 50%, who

perhaps would not have had to do that. Income tax moth generate the

best revenues that it can. When people are multi-millionaires, they

can easily move their money to somewhere else. You know who pays

the most tax as a proportion of their income in this country? The

lowest 10% of families that have a 45%...

The burden of taxation is switching from the poorest to the richest.

The graph is there, it is an ONS statistic. This government is

taxing the rich more than the last one. They found in a report that

the poor have a higher inflation rate due to disproportionately

being hit because of VAT on fuel, Pat and it is disproportionately

hitting those people most needy. -- fuel and power. How do you sort

that out? Good question. We're talking about how much we give to

the poor are. We ought to think on the other side of the equation,

ways to reduce their cost of living. The Government has several policies

in place that systematically raised the cost of living for the poor. We

had a range of policies that have been in place that raised the cost

of housing. People pay a much higher proportion of income for

housing than they did 40 years ago. We have things like the Common

Agricultural Policy, which raises food bills by about �20 per

household. The energy policy is raising electricity and fuel costs

well above what they would otherwise be because of the green

agenda. We can help the poor significantly if we pursue an

agenda of supply-side reforms, where we look to reduce the cost of

living for the poor. That would make the benefits they do get go a

lot further. We will bring Dennis in, he looks animated. Unless I am

not understanding you correctly, you are saying we need to lower

people's standards of living? the contrary, raise them. The cuts

so far affect my family in a way that means there has been less work

available to us. My income is now worth 10% less. We are paying more

and more for shopping. Exactly, that is my point. I don't think

lowering the standards of people at the lowest end of... Why are we not

talking to the people making the most profits about why that profit

is not being shared amongst more workers, whose body was far higher?

Great the welfare card means that people will not be able to spend

money on cigarettes, on lottery tickets, alcohol, but on the things

that matter, what you think about that idea? I would be very worried

about what his idea of what would matter might be. I think when you

start dictating who can buy what with their money, I think we are

getting into a controlling stake. Your numbers came one after the

other, after the other. All I know is that my family is poorer. There

are three disabled people sharing one job. We need the tax credits

that we can get. What happens if they don't get the tax credits?

What happens if they stop now? on, all families in these countries

are poorer in times of austerity. Costs of living have gone up, wages

have frozen. But the cost of living is disproportionately higher

amongst poorer people? There is a fundamental issue of fairness,

making sure it is always more valuable to going to work. You have

to ask yourself the fundamental question, why should the benefits

of people outside of work be going up double the amount of those in

work? If the tax credits are cut, that is what I am trying to say to

you. Is it right that tax credits are cut for people getting �60,000

per year? You think that is what we are getting? Was it right that tax

credits were going to people on that kind of money, all were the

Government manipulating it for votes? I wanted to say that you are

punishing the poor and you're basically saying that people on

benefit spend the money on gambling, drink and smoking. I'm not saying

that. It's not true. If it's not true, then it doesn't affect

anybody. That's right, if you don't do what you have said, it's not a

problem. I think the point is with these cards, and I don't know a lot

about them, but people will find a way to buy what they want to buy.

We are just taking time out of their day, while they work their

way around yet another system that has been put in place for them.

They will buy what they want to buy and find their way around this.

it not the principle of it? Do you understand the principle? I do not

support the principle of it. I think that if people are needy and

need money, they should decide where they spend the money. If they

spend their money on cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets, that

is up to them and they and their family will suffer the consequences

for that. The former Archbishop of Canterbury came out yesterday in

favour of the benefits cap. We might want to talk about that and

the bedroom tax, things that are causing consternation to some

people. Lord Carey said that people feel resentment at handouts given

to the long-term unemployed. It rewards fecklessness and

irresponsibility. Is he right? he was my fear care, actually, in

Durham. On this matter. -- he was my vicar. On this matter he is

wrong. Is he propagating a myth? is. If you look at the poorest 10%

of the population, just the data about those, as the point has been

made, they are paying higher levels of tax and VAT. One of them is

income tax and national insurance. These people are working, often

they are working very low-paid jobs or very temporary jobs. This idea

that there is a big benefit culture is completely false. You have it

acknowledged how much we have raised the income tax threshold.

Someone who works minimum wage has had their income tax halved under

They will have more money because we have raised that level. You were

in the situation where Church Action on Poverty turned it around

for you and found to a job? I think it is going to have a negative

effect on a lot of people, from children, we have already mentioned

there are a lot of children living in poverty, 3.6 million are living

in poverty in the UK at the moment. What is that number going to be

once this comes into effect? It's not going to make it any better.

Whether these cards come into effect or not, if people have

addictions and habits, you are going to find their way to do that.

The children will always suffer more. I keep hearing the word

poverty being thrown around. It's not poverty, its relative poverty.

Let's get that straight. �8 a day. The very poorest, for the bottom

10% of families, published statistics, Office of National

Statistics, the bottom 10% of families, after tax, �12 per day.

You are saying it should be fare cuts across the board. It's been

stated that with millionaires getting benefits, companies like

Starbucks, massive multi-million- pound corporations that are not

contributing to the UK and not paying the taxes. Maybe Starbucks

could lead and we will create more unemployment and you will be happy?

If they made their contribution, would we need to make those cuts?

Today they are threatening to stop further investment in the country.

Some fans have gone up? The point needs to be made that the vast

majority of people in receipt of benefits are actually working as

well. It is just that they need a top up. The problem with talking

about the poor is that they have names and families, a lot of that

is what we forget. If you look on the ground, these are real people

in real situations. India state I am working in, there is a real

harshness that has come over with the way that people treat people on

benefits. It's really difficult for people and there is a division that

has come into communities. This gentleman has had his hand up from

the beginning. I think Alec's ideas are repugnant. I think at the next

election, people will have something to say about it will stop

they have something to say about it now, 75% agree with it. To have a

card, not be able to have money to spend and use a card to buy food,

it is repugnant. Not just a card. Whatever other money you have got,

you can spend on what you like. benefit money. The point is, again,

you are overlooking the fundamental point. Everybody, from the age of

16 to retirement, any government benefit should be on a card.

are explicitly saying that the people on benefits are saying that

they are spending their money on lottery, booze, Sky and gambling?

sign saying that some are. If you want to make sure it is going to

where it is needed, the Government should step in and help that. You

talk about the nanny state, isn't the welfare state a nanny state

anyway? What about the bedroom tax? I listened to the debate on your

show, I listened to people phoning in. People say, I have a child,

they need their bedroom for when they come back from university.

They are saying with their wages they cannot afford the �14 that

will be taken away? I don't understand why the Government will

not be honest and admit it is not saving as much money as it is very

directing into chosen businesses and driving the labour market down

as far as wages go. Most of these benefits go to people that actually

in work. Economically, one of the effects of that is to drive down

wages. It means employers can pay lower wages because they know the

taxpayer is going to top the wages up. That is economics. This system

we have created really bad incentives and traps people in

poverty. Would any of us take a job if we knew that we would lose 80%

or 90% of every pound that we earned in a marginal tax rate, what

people on benefits face. This is what Lord Carey is getting at when

he says it encourages irresponsibility and fecklessness?

People are not being feckless, they are responding perfectly rationally

to the incentives the system has created. We should not be angry

with these people but the politicians that have created such

a cocked up system of incentives. We need to get back to the

fundamental point. It is a moral question. We are drifting away into

the minutiae Ikea. Is it acceptable to actually -- to the minutiae,

here. Is it acceptable to talk about the undeserving poor? Are we

going down the that route? Is that morally acceptable? This is the

kind of language that is implicit in the statements made. There is

this pernicious undermining of people that are in poverty. At the

same time, I would like to hear, if that is the language you wish to

use, which you apply the same terminology and language to those

Are they skivers or strivers? morning, you have not heard me use

any of that language except when I said... George Osborne use that

language. I'm talking about what I have said today, I only said it was

morally repugnant for organisations like Starbucks to avoid tax. Surely,

where we need to move to is that the Government takes less income

tax from people in the first place, at the lowest end of work, in order

to give it back to them. The flipside is that if that moves up,

the less benefits people will get. Back to what you were saying about

people making a decision based on what they can get money wise from

benefits. It's not all about the money. For some people, it does

work out that they might be �30 better off if they going to work.

But there are other implications there. They are not going to be

able to see their children, they cannot be with their family, they

are going to have a lot of stress, pressure of work. There are a lot

of factors people take into account, worry and have fears about. It's

not that people choose to be on benefits because the money is great,

it's not. It's a struggle. It's difficult. But you get to beat with

your family. Some of them actually prefer to milk the benefits system

for what they can get from it. They get it in many different guises.

There might be huge amounts of them, they might not, but there is too

many. The argument would be that it disproportionately punished his...

Do you want to commend? How many of you arguing this side of it have

lived on �35 per week? Was it easy for you? I've worked on factory

floors, I have fitted kitchens and bathrooms... While you were on

benefits? Are you sure that that was legal? I was on benefits, but

then I found a job as quickly as I could. So why are you demonising

people that have been there as well? You are doing the

demonisation. Coming back to what this lady was saying, what people

go out to work when they had children? They might have elderly

people that they need to look after. The point is, we all have that.

Lots of people that go out to work have to juggle many different

things and they find it really difficult. So, why should it be any

different for any body that is on benefits? Why should they not say,

you know what, it will be difficult, maybe granny has to look after the

kids. The answer is the term poverty trap. We need to understand

that. The people I work with are trapped. We need to do something.