Episode 3 Sunday Morning Live

show that gets to the heart and soul of the week's big stories. On

today's programme, animals in the lab, a university is accused of

allowing them to suffer. Why experiment at all? We are a nation

of givers, but are there too many charities wanting our money?

Look at that! He was the famous face of Formula

One. We discover Murray Walker's surprising secrets. Have you passed

your driving test? I have to look a bit shifty because I have never

actually taken a driving test! Good morning.

I'm Sian Williams. More revelations from Murray Walker later on. We're

out and about in the Cotswolds with Andrew Plant who has a new friend

with him. Andrew. Good morning, Sian. This is Maggie our 31-year-old

Harris hawk and we will see her spread her wings shortly, but it is

not falconry here at the Cotswolds Show here in Cirencester. We are

going to be speaking to some people later. We will leave you with a

display of Maggie's prowess. Off you go! Thank you. Well done Maggie.

Time to say hello to our guests this morning. The actress, Nina Wadia

joins us, Sir Max Hastings, the historian. And Kevin Maguire, the

editor of the Daily Mirror and Dr Robert Beckford behind such

documentaries like Who Wrote The Bible? You can comment by phone,

text, e-mail or by Twitter, Facebook.

Do you know how many animals are experimented on in Britain each

year? Recent figures suggest it is more than four million. The latest

numbers will be out next week. How well are those animals looked after?

Recently a couple of leading science universities were criticised over

their animal welfare standards. We are one of the world's leaders in

scientific animal experimentation, but can we zil be both?

scientific animal experimentation, still be both? Every new drug has to

be tested on animals by law. Scientists say it is vital for

developing new medicines. They say every animal research project must

be approved by Government inspectors who are all doctors and vets and be

ethically reviewed too. Less than a fifth of animal research is for

serious diseases and too many trials fail or are harmful because of the

differences between species. Last month cage brim University was

criticised for its experiments on sheep after a report suggested

cruelty during research into their brains. The university said sheep

are used because there is no alternative. They are investigating

allegations of mistreatment. Campaigners claim all research is

unnecessary and needs to stop. Scientists say we wouldn't have

advances in medicine out them. So that's the question for our text and

online vote this week. We're going to be asking you, should animal

experiments be banned? Text the word vote followed by yes or no to 81771.

You can only vote once and go online to vote for free at: And terms and

conditions can be found online. The results will be, of course,

announced at the end of the programme.

So let's ask Robert first. Should anle experiments -- animal

experiments be banned? Yes, scientists are moving towards a

complete ban. It is described replacing tests on animals with

other forms of tests. We know about the suffering inflicted on animals

20, 30, and 50 ago, we weren't aware if cats and dogs were suffering in

the same way as human beings do and we know that's the case now. It is

not profb that all the -- proven that all the testing will lead to

come cure. Some brilliant minds are working on these projects and we

should be able to find alternative ways of testing. It is about the

sanctity of human life and that means about the sanctity of animal

life? There will be some who leave that an animal life is the same as a

human life. I hate the idea of an absolute ban. None of us could

support cruelty to animals and it will be a great day when the

technology can replace animal testing. A lot of people feel

unhappy about animal testing for cosmetics, but when it comes to

animal testing that's going to save human lives, then most of society

wouldn't agree with you, but there is no technological alternative.

Colin Blakemore was knighted, he is couragious and said we need to have

animal testing in order to cure some of the most terrible diseases as

long as respected scientists like Colin Blakemore say that, we have to

respect their judgement. But it will be a great day when animal testing

is no longer at thes. But we're not -- necessary. But we're not there

yet? Scientists say we're not there yet. Nina, four million animal

experiments a year. That was a shock. However, I do agree with Max,

I feel that yes, all of us sitting here I'm sure agree that animal

testing should stop. However, having been in situation where I have been

with friends with pretty bad diseases, breast cancer, terminal

cancer who passed away, I would fight for their right for us to

experiment on animals so we can find a cure at some point. Again, I don't

agree with it being done for cosmetics or for vanity, but in

terms of medical research and scientific reasons, if we need to do

it, as horrible and horrid as it is, these animals will suffer, it would

be preferable for it to be animals as opposed to humans. Testing for

cosmetics is banned in the EU, but not worldwide? In large parts of the

world. In large parts of the world it goes on. Kevin, I wonder if

that's the distinction for you because you have to draw a line

somewhere. It is not OK for cosmetics, it is OK for testing

household products, the toxicity of drugs and medical research, where is

that line drawn for you? The brilliant minds that Robert referred

to, most of them think you need to test these drugs, the medical

advances on animals before you begin testing them on people. I would like

animal to be replaced, I agree with Max when we don't have to do

anymore. By that time we have probably got a cure for cancer and

probably got a cure for Parkinson's and probably got a cure for

Alzheimer's. If a rat or a mouse is going to have to be tested upon, to

save somebody's life, I don't think there is an equivalent between a

rodent and a human. I'm all for saving human lives. Yes, we place,

reduce, animals wherever you can, but when it comes to the crunch, I

don't think people should face death and a terrible way to the future

because we want to save a rat. Let's put that point to someone who

campaigned against animal testing. Joining us is Dr Katie Taylor. Good

morning to you, Katie. Good morning. Is this a simple choice between

animal life and human life? No, it's not. What's important is are animals

important enough that they can be protected from pain, suffering and

distress? It is really important and people so far have focussed the

debate on the ethicacy of animal testing. One in 20 drugs fail in

human clinical trials because the animal tests have not done their

job. They have not predicted whether the drugs will be safe or work. We

have been doing animal testing for over 100 years now. We don't have

cures for cancer, I have, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's.

All these diseases affect all of us, even myself, who is against animal

testing. Animal research helped develop penicillin, blood

transfusions, vaccinations, asthma inhalers. 2,000 people die from

asthma. Animal experiments helped develop the inhaler, would you take

them back? Those inventions were 50 to 100 years ago. Were you against

it as a principle? Does it matter if it was 50 years ago or now? If you

are talking about science, no other business would say, I did something

great 50 years ago, keep feeding me millions of pounds and I'll try and

repeat it. We've been waiting 50 years for these advances. Animal

testing possibly was helpful years and years ago when we were studying

simple diseases that animals also suffered from. We're looking at

diseases have animals don't get. They don't get cancer. They don't

get Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Researchers are investing millions

of pounds of taxpayers money, harming millions of animal, trying

to give them these diseases they don't have and that's a big step

away from actually producing drugs and treatments. Are you really

suggesting... Let me finish. Are you saying that all those scientists

like Colin Blakemore who tell us, these are hugely distinguished,

qualified people who tell us that animal testing is desperately

needed, they are lying to us? I think they're mistaken and what they

are not doing, they are not reviewing the ethicacy of animal

tests and it is down to people such as ourselves that do that and there

was a good article in the British Medical Journal a few weeks ago that

said if you look back at how effective animal tests have been in

the last 20 or 30 years, they are failing. Scientists such as Colin

Blakemore built his life on doing animal experiments because he found

it interesting. It is intellectually stimulating. It is important that

people realise that less than 10% of the animal testing that goes on in

this country is required by law. The majority is what we call basic

medical research. It is cure osity driven. The question is whether the

British public would support that work? Let me point that to our

panel. This is about intellectual cure osity. The scientists are doing

this not necessarily to find cures for diseases? She was saying that

scientists don't examine the ethics and said in the British Medical

Journal, they are questioning it there. It is expensive to test on

animals. So there is an economic driver against it. They would do

something different if they could do it. They don't want to inflict pain

on animals. They are attempting to come up with cures. For illnesses

and diseases that kill many, many people. If you see the suffering

inflicted on animals. It is difficult when you see that to

justify the testing and the limited impact it often has. No all of the

testing leads to some cure. I work in a field where some theologians

believe that animals have souls. It is not Christian. It is in other

tradition and other world religions. It boils down to, do we believe that

animals have rights? We want to go to the Cotswolds show and join

Andrew Plant. Good morning, Andrew. Good morning, Sian. This is our

golden Guernsey goat. He is on the endangered list. Judy, where do you

stand on animal testing? I don't know a lot about it because I'm a

farmer. A friend had her life saved as a result of animal testing, but I

would feel uncomfortable animals being tested so I can wear lipstick.

You have to see animals die, don't you? I do. I love animals. Quality

of life and quality of death is what we're about. And don't forget

farming used to have a very, very bad press. But it is very

transparent now farming. British farming is good. And maybe animal

testing has got something to learn from farming. Thank you very much

indeed. Over here we have Claire, who runs an animal sanctuary. A lot

of the dogs used in animal testing have never seen grass, never walked

outside. I have got a very strong argument against. These animals, if

they make it out, are very damaged, unfortunately, and take a lot of

rehabilitation to get them into somewhere where they feel safe.

Finally, we have God grant. You spend a lot of your time outside.

What is your opinion? For cosmetic reasons it is an absolute no. For

medical reasons I can understand that maybe if I had a child that was

really sick and they thought there was secured through animal testing,

that is a possibility. We have got to seek alternatives. Let's get the

pharmaceutical companies to invest back into the keeping of these

animals. They are making a lot of money off them. Some opinions here

from the Cotswolds show. We will be talking to more people here later.

Back to you. Thank you Andrew. Some really valid

points made there. At the moment we are not in a position where there is

an alternative? Right. We are all saying the same thing. We are

saying, if it is absolutely necessary, it needs to be done. But

if it isn't... Maybe that is the answer. Maybe there are no answers.

Maybe humanity is looking for an answer that will never come. In the

meantime... Lets just wait until we find out whether baby animals have

souls. We need to do that. Until we can then discuss theology and all

the other bits that go with it. Don't downplay theology! It isn't

about abstract reality. It is Don't downplay theology! It isn't

concrete experiences we have to engage with on a daily basis. We

live on a planet that needs to be sustained. Part of that order is

caring for the animals, caring for the environment. Unless we find ways

of reaffirming our connectedness and respecting all forms of creation, we

are in trouble. What you trying to suggest, Robert, that animals and

people should be judged by the same standard? No, I am saying animals

should have rights. They are entitled to be treated with a degree

of respect. One of the things we could all agree about, and even the

anti-vivisection Society, it's not difficult to suggest that those who

breach the laws and the rules about the treatment of animals should be

punished extremely severely. It is not clear-cut. The scientific

establishment contests the data. Briefly, Kevin. Roberts said he did

not want to see animals suffer. I do not want to see animals suffer. I do

not want to see kids suffering from cancer, old people with Alzheimer's

or Parkinson's. Thank you all. Please comment on

this if you're watching at home. The vote is still open. Should animal

experiments be banned? You can only vote once.

You have about 20 minutes before the vote closes. You can also vote

online. Results will be announced at the end

of the show. Still to come, should Christian school assemblies be

consigned to history? To many charities are doing the same

thing and competing unnecessarily for our hearts and our money, so

says the outgoing chief executive of the charity commission. There are no

more than 160,000 registered in England and Wales and the commission

receives about 30 new applications every week. Should we have fewer

charities? We join thousands of fundraisers at a triathlon in

Berkshire to ask them. The sun was shining at Dorney Lake

in Berkshire earlier this week as competitors ran, swam and cycles.

All entry fees were donated to the Samaritans, which has been raising

money for the last 60 years. Do those at the event feel there are

too many charities to support? It is difficult to say there are too many.

A lot of people are touched with personal charities. It is quite

difficult to decide where you should put your charitable pound. Certainly

from the business front we rotate. We have competitions every couple of

years. All the staff members will vote. We mix it up a little bit like

that. I don't think there are too many charities in Britain today.

Lots of charities provide really important services in society,

whether that is actual services, campaigning, research... They are

often very come to entry to each other. Where charities achieve the

most success where they can work together for a shared aim.

As long as I am not expected to donate to every single one, then I

think an element of choice is good. It creates competition among the

charities themselves. And they have actually got to work for the

donations given to them. Max, competition is good. If you have a

cause that you're passionate about, why not? I think there are too many

charities. The charities we have got need more scrutiny than they

receive. Just by saying, we want to do good, it tends to disqualify the

usual scrutiny we bring to bear on politicians, businesses etc. Many

charities do wonderful things. But also, all the questions, if you look

at any of the website of the big charities, you would be amazed at

how little they tell you about how much their executives are paid and

how much is spent on administration, advertising etc. We had a charity in

our family some years ago. It was suggested that we should set up a

charity in memory of this particular family member and we all agreed in

the end, no. Wide? We felt it much more useful to give money and give

support to an existing charity to examine the problem. I think

creating these individual charities often becomes self-indulgent. It

becomes about making the bereaved feel-good rather than about thinking

what may actually best help to address this particular problem,

whatever it may be. If you have more than 160,000 charities, the issue is

with policing them effectively. There are not enough people to look

at the books? Yes, and the outgoing chief executive of the commission

complained about spending cuts. I could get with -- get rid of quite a

few hundred, quite a few thousand charities. I cannot believe Eton and

the public schools are all charities. Charterhouse is a

charity. I cannot see what the societal good is further. Private

schools have to, if they have a charitable status, they have to

prove they are doing something beyond the pupils in that school.

Yes, once a month they have to let the kids from the local

comprehensive run about their football pitch! There are only about

a thousand of them anyway. Derek Morkan than 2000 veterans charities.

-- there are more than. It is crazy. It may be crazy, Max, but I think

diversity is a strength. When you have... There is something wonderful

that you should celebrate if another family can raise money if it is

around somebody who is known locally. What are these charities

actually doing? I would have thought they have got to have some sort of

scale in order to have a chance to do research, to make a difference.

To my experience on cancer charities is they give the money to the bigger

charities. They do not try to commission research themselves. They

are getting money and they are getting people to donate. They will

give to the Jimmy Knapp Cancer fund because they know Jimmy Knapp. I bet

you get a lot of people asking for your support because you are very

well-known. It is helpful for a you have that support. With an issue

like cancer there are so many different charities competing for

the same pound. Charity is a very subjective thing. Everyone here has

a charity they support, I'm sure, and it will be something personal. I

can see both sides. I can see the fact the bigger charities are

already established. They know where the money should go to make sure the

research is -- is done. On the other hand, the bigger charities CV

suffering. They want that money. We don't know where the admin costs are

going etc. When I was in Eastenders, I had from every week, at least five

or six new charities asking me to be their patron. At first I said yes,

of course, then I realised I was patron of about 300 charities. I

thought it was ridiculous. I cannot do anything more than put my name to

it. As opposed do anything more than put my name to

really try to raise money from the ground up. You are more likely to

know where the money is going for -- to a local charity. There are

websites that encourage people to look carefully at charities, how

efficient they are etc. I want to take the long ball view. I think

what we have two really look at is take the long ball view. I think

the fact that the taking back of the welfare state has meant that many

charities, many individuals, have had to step in and do the work the

Government used to do. What we should be asking is, why are

Government used to do. What we people having to do this kind of

thing when we are being taxed by government for jobs they should do

in the first place CROWD CHEER The second

in the first place CROWD CHEER The consciousness. It deals with the

symptoms but it does not get to the having charities set up to help

young people do things after school, having charities set up to help

it is partly because the state no longer

it is partly because the state no services. Do you really believe the

it is partly because the state no say that. We

it is partly because the state no kind of things the state should be

doing instead of having individuals and charities stepping. The

government would look after the veterans charities themselves.

government would look after the things that I felt very strongly

ought properly things that I felt very strongly

the Ministry for defence. Lots of charities do things that should be

done by the Government. One of the great things Barnardos does is it

looks at the root cause of things. They have a school in Woking. They

take kids who have been vulnerable, who are vulnerable, and they also

about why they have ended up that way. Yes,

about why they have ended up that the opportunity to do that. But I

think ideally it would be great to have a mass of commissioning body

that was just where all the money went and it was distributed equally.

That is a really interesting idea. There are a lot of charities often

represented at the Cotswolds show. Let's rejoin Andrew Plant. You have

got the Shetland pony Grand National team warming up behind me. These

guys race later. That would be good to watch. Sebastien here actually

helps run this. If I could interrupt you for a second. You are

effectively raising money for charity a lot of the time. What is

your opinion? We have been raising money for 21 years for great Ormond.

This year, over the next three years, we are hoping to raise 55,000

to pay for a new suite at the hospital itself. Your opinion on

there being too many charities? I think we are getting to a stage

where there are too many. Every time you open the paper there is some

sort of charity. I'm not saying that we should stop charities or stop

encouraging charities, but I think there needs to be more possible

regulation and perhaps they should be more vetted. Perhaps the

charities commission should drivers license some of these charities and

make them more proactive. Thank you. We have that Abigail here. 50% of

the revenue from your animal sanctuary ghosted charities. It is

really important for small charities. If we didn't have

donations from members of the public, we would not be able to

survive. I agree we need more accountability. We have a very close

strategy with six objectives. We are accountable to all of our members

and members of the public, so they know whether money is being spent

Thank you for joining us. From the Cotswolds, and the little Grand

National, back to you. Max, a good point there. It is really important

for the small charities to have that money, but your concern and I have

seen you write about this is with the bigger charities, isn't did? The

people who are best qualified to judge whether a charity is doing

good work are the people who give to it and what I think that people who

give to charities ought to look harder than they do. Red Nose day,

it is a wonderful idea. It gives people the chance to write their

cheques, but who has a clue what happens to the money from Red Nose

Day? It represents a classic example of the false consciousness that I've

been talking about. We give hundreds of billions of pounds every year to

help development projects in the developing world when the issue is

global economic injustice. The fact that the trade laws result in a

great deal of poverty so for every ?10 we may give, we take back ?300.

I made a film about this for Channel 4. On Max's point and we don't have

the people behind Red Nose Day to give a right to reply and comment,

but charities are meant to be transparent. You can find the

details. Some of them have big surpluses? I'm shocked by how

untransparent they are. They give statistics, one of them I won't

name, one of them gives statistics that 90 pence of every ?1 goes to

the people. This is not true because they are including in the 90 pence

the administration costs of distribution and so on. I'm not

saying, don't, I'm not knocking people who are doing good. I'm just

saying that just because they say they want to do good, we shouldn't

accept them at their own valuation. We should say what are they

achieving? I agree national developments charities are papering

over the cracks and there is an inequality between the first and the

developing worlds if you want to call them that. Some health

charities, why does Great Great Ormond Street have to reply on

charity? -- rely on charity? We have the chance to show that part of the

package, of course, the State has to bear most of the responsibility, but

to give people that opportunity to contribute is terrific? Again, I

think we should celebrate people giving their money. Not those at the

top who want a hospital wing named after them, but all the people who

give small amounts, I celebrate. You talk about false consciousness,

you're not going to feed people who are hungry by going to foodbanks.

Robert's point was that he has seen on the ground that charities don't

work. That the money that goes to charities possibly doesn't get to

the people who want it. They do the Band Aid work. If there is hunger,

you have to do deal with it, but you have to deal with the causes and

that's what concerns me. Charity has been reduced to a psychological

feel-good factor. Robert, but that's needed. We don't deal with the

concrete sauces. This is why I say charities are sub jective thing and

it is part of the healing process. For some families where they have

lost someone and they feel they want to do something, that's part of

their healing process. It is not harming anyone else, it is helping

them. I truly believe that there should be one huge body that gets

all this money and gets it to the right people. It is a really

interesting point, thank you. Let's leave it on that point. On a great

big pot and somebody decides where the money is going to go. Santa

Claus has to do it! In a few hours time, the British Grand Prix will

roar into action at Silverstone. For a generation or two, the familiar

voice of the sport was Murray Walker. Murray retired from

commentating over a decade ago. At 91 and with no intention of slowing

down, I went to meet him and to talk about his career and his values and

to hear the legendary voice. And Damon Hill exits the chicane and

wins the Japanese Grand Prix. I've got to stop because I've got a lump

in my throat. Murray, it is lovely to see you. Thank you very much for

inviting me into your home. It is a pleasure to have you, Sian. Ump the

voice of Formula One, do you miss it? I miss it desperately. I did my

first Grand Prix commentary in 1949 so I'm if my maths is right, I'm

into my 63rd year of broadcasting. Do I miss Formula One? Yes, I miss

it desperately, but you can't go on forever. Do you watch it? I watch

every second of it! Still? On every channel and I read every word that's

written about it. It's in my blood. I started my life as the son of a

professional racing motorcyclist who was very successful, Graham Walker,

he won the TT in the Isle of Man, I was born in an atmosphere of motor

sport and I was either going to love it or loathe it. I adored my father

and I wanted to be like him. So once it got into your blood, it never

ever leaves you. A good start from Hill. It looks like a good start for

everyone. What is it that gets into your blood? Is it the love of

adrenalin? I think short of being involved in a war, you probably get

more adrenalin from sport than anything else and whilst I'm

certainly not knocking other sports, they are all interesting and

exciting in their way, to me motorsport is the greatest of all.

There is an element of danger in it, of course, which most other sports

don't have. And it's that, it's the speed and it's the camaraderie of

the people that you're with and working with. Ayrton Senna is ahead

of Schumacher and challenging. That element of danger makes it very

exciting to watch because you know that there maybe a crash. And you

know that people are putting their lives at risk? Sian, they all know,

we all knew, that it could happen to you, but, of course, you don't think

it will ever happen to you because if you really did think it, you

wouldn't be doing it. But they all get into their cars, or on their

bikes, with the knowledge that at best they could be hurt and at

worst, they could be killed, but you put that to the back of your mind

and you get on with it because the lure of going fast and beating the

other person is extreme. We've talked about the risks of Formula

One. When you think about Michael Schumacher, ironically, he was very,

very badly injured away from the track? Well, what

very badly injured away from the tragic? Michael Schumacher had

spent, I don't know, at least 20 years of his young life risking his

life every time he went to work and when he gets in the car, he is going

to work, seven times a world champion, much admired, he retires

from motor racing, goes skiing for a bit of fun, and that's what happens.

But I feel that the moment that you stop people from doing something

dangerous, provided they don't endanger the lives of other people,

and the moment you stop that, humanitarian is in trouble. --

humanity is in trouble, I think. I think you have a very interesting

view on risk and mortality if I can say that because I suppose of your

father and because he was a risk taker and because you have seen so

many people that you know, not just in the war, but also in the

profession you chose to go into, have serious injuries and crashes.

Has that affected, do you think, the way you are as an individual and how

you view life? When you're doing the job I did, you get friendly with

drivers, but you don't get too friendly with drivers and I suspect

it's some sort of subconscious shield to protect yourself in the

possible event that something terminal is going to happen to them.

Strange, but true. This protective shield that you have, did you use it

when you were diagnosed with cancer yourself? It is very strange

actually because I was in hospital because I had fallen and broken my

pelvis and when I was checked out of the hospital, they said we want you

to go to the to the haematology department. I thought haematology,

that's blood. So I trickled along to the haematology department and a

charming woman specialist starts talking to me about the fact that

cancer is not as bad as it used to be because we can do all sorts

things. I thought, "What is she going about cancer for?" I have

fallen down and broken my pelvis and then she told me I had non Hodgkin's

which is a form of blood cancer. When I lined up to have my

chemotherapy, they said, "Your blood has improved so much, you don't need

the chemotherapy and we are going to give you regulars checks and see you

go." My blood condition is A1 and no problem, and they say, with luck you

can go on for the rest of your life like that. Do you have a fatalistic

attitude when it comes to life and death? Yes. Where we came from and

where we're going to, I don't know and nobody knows actually. Do they?

I don't know anybody that's been there and can tell us what it was

like. I think those who have a faith have perhaps more of a certainty

about where they might be going. Do you have a faith? No, I don't.

People who have a faith have a more certainty about where they think

they might be going. They don't know. I'm not knocking them. I'm not

knocking people of faith. But they don't know anymore than I do. My

parents weren't religious and I have never actually felt the need to go

to church and worship like other people do. I have always tried to

live my life by doing as I would be done by. And I don't think it is

necessary to go to church in order to lead a good life. Is there any

time to relax in Murray Walker's world? What do you do to relax? This

is sad actually. I don't know what I do to relax. Tell me one thing you

could do. Have you passed your driving test yet? I have to look a

bit shifty now because I've never actually taken a driving test! When

I was in the Army, there was a rule which said when you come out of the

Army, if you can get a certificate, of driving competence from your

technical aJewedant, aJewed ajudant. You don't have to take a driving

test. I was the technical Ajudant. Murray Walker can't drive. What

correlation is there between having a driving licence and being able to

drive? I refute your outrageous statement! You mean is not legally

entitled to drive. Would you take your driving test now? I see no need

to take a driving test! I like, all men, regard myself as a proficient

driver. Murray, it has been lovely talking to you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Oh dear, Murray Walker, 91, a living legend. You can catch

the British Grand Prix from midday. It is not to be missed! Murray won't

be missing. Max, I want to pick up on something that Murray said about

the adrenalin in sport. You have written many on the books. He said

you get more adrenalin from sport than anything else? That's true. A

lot of people got the adrenalin from the Second World War. I was brought

up in a family, that my father and the men of my family were privileged

to enjoy the war. Enjoy the war? They brought me up to believe it was

an romp that I missed. A Norwegian wrote in his memoirs in 1947, he

said although wars bring adventures that stir the heart, the true nature

of war is composed among tragedies and sacrifices and not redeemed by

glory and I spent the rest of my life learning that and trying to

convey in my books. Thank you very much more that Max, thank you. The

vote is closing now. Please do not text us. We will bring you the

result at the end of the programme. Do you school assembly? It has a bit

over the years since those hymns and prayers and predictable shuffling

and giggling. Now the religious part could be banned altogether. There is

a call for the abolition of the 70-year-old rule that requires

school to hold a Christian assembly every year, as population and faiths

get more diverse. -- populations. The rules set out in the 1944

education act require all state schools to provide broadly Christian

worship every day. However, the National Governers' Association,

representing more than 300,000 school governors across England,

says if the act of worship is not in your life, it is meaningless. It is

schools -- mass schools are places of education, not worship.

schools -- mass schools are places have the right to pull children out

of religious assemblies. But two thirds of parents surveyed says --

said there children did not take part in

anyway. Kevin, I

anyway. with the governors. Our broadly

Christian assemblies in schools meaningless? I think they are

ridiculous. They should have gone out with the Ark. Looking at my own

kids going through schools, most schools do not have them. It is in

the law. Schools are about education. They are not about

religion. Yes, teach religion, but do not preach. A quarter of us have

no religion. Two in five have no religion or another religion which

is not Christian. I think it is absolutely ridiculous in modern

Britain to be trying to push this on schools. More than 33 million people

in this country are Christian. Do we need to hear that religion as it is

the majority? I am very nostalgic about this. I grew up in the Bombay

Scottish orphanage high school in Bombay. It was a Christian school.

We had to learn the hymns and we have assembly every morning. And I

loved it. The reason I loved it is because it brought us together. We

talked about community, we talked about all the things, the little

achievements of the children had. If somebody had done really well, they

were given an award. It was all very special. My kids right now are going

through this and they love it. So for me, I personally wouldn't change

anything. You can have the community bit and give out prizes. You don't

have to thrust one version of God down the throats of kids. Him still

sing about things that actually mean the same across a lot of religions.

I agree totally with Nina. I think we would lose something. David

Cameron is much mocked when he says we live in a Christian country. Of

course we are not in a religious sense. But we have a Christian

culture. Something I'm hugely grateful for it is all those years

at boarding school when I could sing hymns and say prayers. Culturally it

is very important. If you teach people to believe nothing, they end

up believing anything. Max, there is a difference between teaching and

preaching. You can teach religion within philosophy and ethics. That

is very different to having worship every day. I think it is quite

dangerous when we start compartmentalising education. We're

much more holistic manner. Therefore,

much more holistic manner. one's life, whether that is

religious or nonreligious, or some sense of

religious or nonreligious, or some assembly will be inclusive. It will

have something for people of faith and people of no faith. How can we

make the Assembly an important point of moral reflection? Whether you are

the hip-hop artist or a highly trained psychologist, people like

the ability to reflect. You are a theologian. Given the multi-faith

world we live in, given the fact there is a lack of religious

literacy, it should be inclusive. It should empower people of faith and

people of no faith. A touch of the Prince Charles's! Duncan Howarth

joins us from the National Governers' Association. Why do you

think Christian worship in schools is meaningless? What is meaningless

updated? Can I just say the National Governers' Association have come up

with this proposal for a change and we have to be clear about what we

are proposing. There are phoning many types of schools now. -- there

are very many types of schools. We can broadly defined them as a school

with a faith designation or not. What we are saying very clearly is

that we are -- where is school has a faith designation, we would still

expect those schools to have a daily act of collective worship. But we

are now saying that where the school does not have faith designation -- a

faith mesic -- designation, that it makes sense not to have a daily act

of collective worship. The reasons for that are twofold. One, the

reality of the situation is that many schools do not actually meet

the legal requirements. And secondly, as has already been said,

we believe school for education and not a place for worship in a school

of non-faith designation. That does not mean you can have assemblies. In

fact, most schools would still have assemblies and they would continue

to talk in those assemblies about faith and belief. A Church of

England spokesman said that at least a time of collective worship is a

time for children to reflect and pause. It is not about education. It

is a space in the day where they can learn about other things. They can

learn about a moral code. They can learn about how to behave well

towards one another. Is that still not key? It is absolutely key. The

fact is that there is a need, and a legal requirement, for a religious

education curriculum. That will cover all of those things that you

have just been talking about. A broad, balanced knowledge of all

faiths and the moral and cultural things that are going on. We know,

for instance, that following the situations that have arisen in some

Birmingham schools, probably there will be some changes to strengthen

that area. But that has always been in schools and continues to be in

schools now. Not the same as collective worship. This is where we

have got into a tangle. There has never been any evidence of Christian

extremism in British schools. We now have a formidable problem with

Moslem extremism. -- Moslem. There are schools that will not teach

Darwin and evolution. There are schools where parents are putting a

very Christian agenda and heads are resisting it because they feel if

they allow extremism... In Birmingham, they were pushy parents.

They happened to be Moslem parents. They happen to be Christian parents.

I don't think we will lose anything important from the loss of Christian

religion but we will lose a lot if we lose Christian culture. That is

something very valuable. Do you agree we would lose something if we

tried to dissipate our Christian culture and don't pay attention to

it? We will lose something if we don't pay attention to religion. It

is important to value all religious and non-religious experience. The

day we stopped taking morality and transcendence seriously, we're in

trouble. Christianity is one of the major global religions. Immature

culture like our own should be at a point where we should celebrate. All

of them. What about the time for reflection? You reflect on something

that does not have any faith attached to it? Murray Walker said

he did not go to church. He still got character, he has a strong moral

code. May the concentration should be more on the word assembly rather

than Christian. What I like about the fact it is a question assembly

is that we have similar morals. It is all about being positive and

being good people. That is what most religions should be based on. The

fight for a good against evil. It is but it is all about teaching, not

worship. You can reflect on moral and ethical issues. But you do not

need to be pushing one form of Christianity. I stick with what I

said. We would lose something by the loss of Christian culture. I take

Kevin's point. You don't have to be very religious to be a good person.

The idea that we're becoming a of non-believers in anything, I am

rather frightened about. I think it is a mistake to think worship is

somewhat alien to our everyday lives. There are sociologist to say

that football is a form of collective worship for men. The same

characteristics you find on a Sunday morning service you will find that a

football match. Worship is part of our existence. Why not teach

children within the context of education that there are varieties

of worship available to them? It can be educated but it is also educative

on a personal behavioural level. What does it transcend and see the

world and more global terms than one may be taught by watching

television? The law is saying have a broadly Christian Dailly worship. We

should recognise that our culture has moved on. It is much more

inclusive. The focal point for a religious assembly that engages with

religion and people of faith and not of faith is important. I would say

tweak the law so it becomes more inclusive and celebrates rather than

marginalises. Cami and that? That feels like a consensus. What I find

valuable when I do go to church is to find a tiny window of time to

think about something other than my own self-interest. That goes for all

of us. Just to bring you up-to-date with our vote should animal

experiments be banned here? Here is what you told us. 66% of those of

you who voted said yes, they should be banned. 34% said no. 66%. Let's

go to find out what they think that the Cotswolds show. That is pretty

high. Let's get reaction from clear. -- Clare. Presumably the sympathy

with the view that they should be banned? Absolutely, I agree. It is a

shame it is not higher but we can work on it. Judy, very quickly. You

are a farmer. What do you think of the results? I don't know a lot

about animal testing. I certainly respect people's opinions. Maybe it

is something I should look into deeper. Thank you for joining us.

From the Cotswolds show, back to you. That is back to -- that is it.

Thanks to all my guests in the studio. And to those who joined us

further afield. We are back at the same time next Sunday. Join me then.

This competition is hotting up to be the best Celebrity MasterChef ever!

They are contestants hungry for the MasterChef title.

Celebrity MasterChef, the semifinals...