Episode 16 Sunday Morning Live

Just one child in ten say they learn the facts of life from their

parents. And our teen pregnancy rates are the highest in Europe. So,

why are we still so troubled by the thought of more, and earlier, sex

Good morning, and welcome to Sunday Morning Live. A quarter of

teenagers say they don't get sex education in school. Isn't the

classroom the best place to banish ignorance about sexual behaviour?

No, says family rights campaigner Lynette Burrows. I don't believe

the state should teach children about sex and I would go to prison

for this belief. Get those binoculars out - the government

wants us to inform on illegal immigrants, welfare cheats and

Muslim extremists. Is snooping on each other really the duty of a

good citizen? Betty Driver said there would have to shoot her to

get rid of her, so with a crisis looming, should we follow our

example? My guests this week have never been shy about telling others

just what they think of them. Douglas Murray hotly defends his

right to be right-wing, and has been so critical of Islam he needs

a police guard in Holland. Francis Beckett is a historian and

playwright who writes tips on how to enjoy a happy retirement. His

father was interned during the war as a fascist sympathiser. Lynette

Burrows is the author of Fighting for the Family. She's a mum of six

and runs a school in her own house. And we want to hear what you think.

Call in now to challenge our guests on Skype. Or give your views on

Twitter or by phone. Phone calls cost up to 5p/min from a BT

landline. Calls from mobiles and other networks may cost

considerably more. Texts will be charged at your standard message

rate. Research this week suggests our

teenagers aren't getting enough sex education in school. The Dutch say

their teenagers have sex later, fewer pregnancies and less STDs

than ours because they have sex education earlier - as young as

four. But if we go Dutch, Lynette Burrows says she'll go bananas. And

I don't believe the state should teach children about sex and I

would go to prison for this belief. For years we have been told that

sex education for children was absolutely necessary to stop the

miseries of unwanted pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted

disease. But now it is generally accepted that this approach has not

worked. And this is probably one of the reasons why they want to widen

it down to primary school children. I think parents have an absolute

right to protect their children from this sort of education, which

is so unhealthily obsessed with destroying childhood innocence in a

way that is reminiscent of Peter fear. To me, anybody who wants to

talk dirty to little children is a danger to them. Children have a

natural modesty which is a protection for them. After all, how

are they to know the difference between a stranger in a classroom

showing them dirty pictures and a dirty old man in the park showing

the same pictures. Who is the predator? When a child is older and

does biology in secondary school they will learn all about

reproduction at a time when it has some relevance and purpose to it.

The government isn't good at organising anything, with the

possible exception of the army and the public drains. Let's not

therefore prepared -- pretend that they are capable of replacing

parents. What do you think of those views? That is our text vote this

morning. The school sex-education We will show you how you voted at

the end of the programme. Francis, what you make of what to Lynette

said about teachers taking away the innocence of our children. I think

that's the most ghastly load of rubbish other heard in my life.

very tolerant of you. It is extraordinarily intolerant that to

say that teachers are a bit like paedophiles, an appalling thing to

say. The state must come in on matters like that. The state does

have a role. You say it cannot have a role in educating children, well,

there are a number of things. If you decided that children want to

be taught to read and write, the state would step in. The state

would step in and say, I'm sorry, Lynette, your children are going to

be taught to read and write, and rightly so, because we know that

our prisons, well over 50 % of the population of prisons are people

who cannot read and write and whose reading and writing ages below that

of 11. This is totally irrelevant. In exactly the same way, our

children think they cannot grow up properly without being able to read

and write, they cannot grow up properly without understanding sex.

Lynette, is it the same right? it is not the same right. That is

ridiculous. There is no way you can teach sex in an impersonal way as

to teach mathematics or literature. It is something very personal and

it depends how it is taught. When a child is five or six years old it

is absolutely abhorrent to have somebody come in there and talk to

them about things that they have no interest in or knowledge about. It

is far too young. I'm not saying you should do it at no age, but I

wouldn't have teachers do it anyway. Look what they have done to

literature and poetry. Music. They can ruin anything. Why do we want

to give them sex education? You're better at it than most. Most

teachers have worked out in the wake that children learn compared

to that parents happen. That is funny with the literacy rate so

very high. Something has gone right. They are actually not very high.

They are very highly elitist -- illiteracy rates in prison.

Children leave school at 11 and move over and are illiterate.

stick with the teacher's ability to teach sex education. Douglas,

Francis describes the way Lynette has described sex education

teaching as ghastly. Do you think there is an age when it is

appropriate to teach sex education to children, or do you have a

concern? I think it is a bit ghastly as well. But there is a

truth somewhere, and we are doing something badly wrong, and that is

fairly obvious with the highest teenage pregnancy rates. Obviously

it is not working, and I would say that the answer that tends to be

coming up with is therefore you should teach it earlier and earlier.

I don't think it is the stage at which we teach sex education, I

think it is what you are teaching and how well you're doing it that

matters. If we look at the comparison with the Netherlands

where sex education can start as young as four. A can, but it

doesn't very often. And the average age where people engage in sexual

activity is higher over there and the teen pregnancy rate is lower,

is that because of the age, or the Netherlands get it right with the

content. I think they get it right within their society. The Dutch

society has different tolerances and laws and we do and you have to

adapt it to your situation. In Britain we are obviously getting

something wrong and we have to change it. I think bringing it

forward is not the answer. Nor is the answer that school should not

teach anything about sex to children. Why don't we talk to a

sex education teacher. Alice, presumably you are best placed to

tell us what goes on in the classroom. Do you think there is an

age at which you are going to get the message across best two young

children? I think it needs to be done from an early age, but at an

age appropriate level. My toddler is 20 months old and I'm currently

pregnant and she knows there is a baby in mummy's tummy. That is

technically sex-education but it is a level suitable for her. And when

she starts to ask questions, I will answer those questions. But keeping

it at a level that his age She is talking about her own child.

We are not talking about sex education is caused. Children have

always learned where babies come from, the cat, the dark, their

mother. It is not railroaded on them by a stranger in a class full

of other children which might be completely wrong. If you are

talking about your own children but you do teach sex education. Lynette

has described teachers talking to children about sex as showing them

dirty pictures. What sort of material do you use? No dirty

pictures for a start. It really does depend on the age group and

what we are teaching, but most of it focuses on relationships,

biology and focuses on just young people being able to make safe,

informed choices when they are ready. Ie teaching five year-old, 6

Paroles, teenagers? -- are you teaching? -- six-year-olds.

specialise in secondary, so the group's I workers tend to be over

the age of 14. -- the group's I work with. But there is some work

all the way through. Let's be very clear, the majority of parents want

schools to teach sex education, around 84 %. The majority of young

people are demanding more and better sex education from schools.

They also want parents to deliver its -- it, but they want to save

space that is in their parents to discuss the issues. So we need to

meet their needs. Alice, stay with us. Nick is from the Campaign for

Real Education. You have a problem with some of the material used to

teach sex education. Absolutely. I know a lot of children are unhappy

with sex education and parents would rather leave it to someone

else, but parents don't appreciate how explicit a lot of sex education

materials are. Even primary school children are taught explicit

details of male and female genitalia which they do not need to

know. Sex education are also covers heterosexual and homosexual

practices in a notch and -- non- judgemental way which is too

explicit and unnecessary. Psychologists say that if children

are introduced to such things before they are ready it can

interfere with their natural development and desensitise their

children and destroys their childhood. You cannot beat age

explicit in a class of 20 or 30 children because children develop

that's -- different ages and it should be up to parents to decide

when the children are ready, not for schools to deliver it. Nick, I

was surprised that you are complaining that homosexuality was

taught in a non-judgmental way. I would have thought that that was

exactly the way in which all sex, including homosexuality or to be

taught. To complain children are being left there to make up their

own mind and it is non-judgmental is a bad thing is very odd. Not a

tall. The whole purpose of bringing up children by parents and teachers,

to teach them in education, but also moral values and family values.

Because the Dutch are more religious than we're and strong on

Up you are talking about your moral than these. I don't think there is

anything wrong with homosexuality in terms of my moral values. Maybe

you don't. Opinions vary, and it could be up to the individual the

parents to decide, not schools. Exactly, it should be up to the

individual and it should be left up to the individual child to make up

his or her mind on moral issues. seven years old? Not at all. You

are trying to get non-judgmental is imposed on every. You cannot impose

Teachers in school have enough to do with raising academic standards

in English maths and sciences which we need to be ever to compete

internationally. You know, since sex education is more prevalent

there is no doubt that sexually transmitted diseases have increased

dramatically and we also have very high teenage pregnancy rates

compared with other countries. Sex education and the idea you can have

safe sex which is put forward in a sex-education lessons, children are

more less told that we know you will experiment so here is how to

do it as safely as possible. It undoubtedly encourages some

youngsters to experiment before they should. Nick, thank you. Let's

talk to someone with a different view. Rabbi Dr Jonathan is from a

school's organisation which does not support faith schools. What do

you make of this idea that sex education comes without a moral

framework which is something that offends some of the guests we have

I do not think that is true. Sex- education is not about promiscuity.

It is factual information about your body and how it works. It is

equipping children for life, as much as knowing about history or

geography. Some parents may be very good at communicating to their

children about sex but others are ignorant, or embarrassed. Some have

warped judgment. Even a Lynette into that that when she was talking

about dirty pictures, which are not a dirty a tall, just descriptive.

Parents have rights. If they have a particular view, such as being for

against contraception, let them discuss that at home, but let them

not deny children knowledge of how the body works in the first place.

Schools can maybe go that extra step by having parallel classes,

offering classes for parents so that parents know what their

children are knowing and can discuss it when they come home, and

filling in the gaps. Many parents do not have that basic knowledge.

No one is suggesting that parents are not going to be involved with

the child's said to education, so whatever they learn in class, the

parent is still the primary influence. -- sex education. I do

not know if you have seen any of these programmes, but they are very

graphic and crude. Most parents would not talk to their children

like that. The point about the misquoted Dutch experiment is that

it is not compulsory in Dutch schools at all. It varies very

wildly. Sex education is not compulsory in UK Primary Schools.

If they get pregnant, they're given to their families, and they do not

get any benefit. As the old adage said, of what you pay a lot for,

you get a lot of. No other country has such graphic sex education and

gives children accommodation and allowance when they get pregnant.

They are just given back to their families. That is why it is low,

I'm sure. Lily is 20, you went to a Catholic girls' school. What we are

taught in sex education? Sex- education was relatively non-

existent. -- what were you tot. It was Catholic orientated so it

consisted mainly of chastity and pro-life talk. It was very

different to what Lynette is saying. It was not in any way explicit.

What do you feel you missed out on? If we are discussing the fact that

introducing children to early May be a risk, do you feel that? I feel

like I was misinformed. Not misinformed, but lacked information,

and there were things held back from us that maybe people had

different experiences of, different education, because it was Catholic

orientated, we were not given some facts. We missed out information. I

was lucky enough that I had a relationship with my mum that I

could speak to her about these things and it is good that Lynette

does with her children but not everyone is that lucky. It can be

an awkward and embarrassing conversation, so I think it should

be left to teachers. The what is your view? Lilley says that she was

lucky because her parents were able to discuss this openly. What do you

make of the point that some parents may want teachers to teach us.

think sex-education blows up as an issue every now and then. One thing

issue every now and then. One thing that is certain, even though the

that is certain, even though the discussion is clear, is that it is

discussion is clear, is that it is never about children. It is always

about adult values and our inability to agree on them. What is

happening at the moment, in the way that the sex-education discussion

has been shaped his a strong tendency to blame parents. But at

the same time, not trusting parents to be the solution. In this case,

we're told that some parents do not talk to children about sex or bad

lot of parents lack the skills or confidence to talk to the road

children. I think that is clearly not true. There may be a strong

minority of parents who do not want to talk to their children and that

to talk to their children and that is their decision. In the younger

years of a child's wife, it is important that is respected. The

most unhealthy aspect of this discussion is that we have moved

beyond a concern with the fact of life. What is happening is that the

fact that are important, we have moved into a different direction.

Experts are claiming that they can tell us the best way to live our

relationships and very intimate relationships, and how to relate to

people sexually. I do not think there are experts that know that

better than families and young people themselves. Douglas, this is

not a value-free lesson, is it? Or can it be? It can be, under broad

terms. The simple biology, as it were, should be taught as biology.

Leave that until the stage at which they can understand that, and need

to know that. The need to know basis, that is important. The

reason why people are worried about fight Urals being taught sex

education is because they think, why do they need to know? But when

you do need to know about the biology, of course you have to be

taught that, and you can be told that as fact. It is not opinion,

how babies are made. But then you come on to the other part of the

issue, the non biological part, about how you have loving

relationships, and I think that can be done in a values freeway, or a

way in which everyone can agree, to imbue children with the idea that

what of relationship they have or aspire to, it should be one in

which they care for people and respect people. I do not think

anyone could disagree on very broad parameters like that. Francis, you

have listened to the evidence. have, and I think it is very ought

to complain about the number of teenage pregnancies on the one hand

and at the same time seek to deny children knowledge of contraception.

children knowledge of contraception. Our schools are designed and we

expect them to bring our children up to live in the world, not just

to read and write, but to teach them all these things. One of the

things you have to know, as you grow up, is about sex and

relationships. It seems simply appalling to hive that off from

everything else that the child needs to know, to say, you can

teach them about everything else but you must not teach them about

that. To do that is a symptom of unhealthy obsession. The as another

thing we have not touched upon. Today, children find out about

these matters earlier than my generation did or anyone else's

generation. -- there is another thing. The funny thing is, you talk

about her parents are not able to tell their children about sex,

presumably that has not changed. And yet we have rising teenage

pregnancy and disease. The youth think that it is the wrong sort of

education to say to children that this is a subject that is

completely different, that it needs to be centres of the handled.

Children have this Russian roulette attitude towards sex, would they

throw everything at it. -- sensitively handled. An e-mail: "I

agree with Lynette. Sexual -- teenage pregnancies occur in

children with low aspirations. By the time of sexual education, most

children know about sex." June, from Glasgow, says: "We would not

start in front of children at four years old teaching what is

appropriate for teenagers. At the early ages, it is about respect."

We would like to know what do you think. His sex-education bad for

The polls will close in 20 minutes. This week, the underwear boma

admitted trying to blow up a plane with explosives hidden in his pants.

It is thought he was radicalised when studying in London. The

Government asks lecturers now to inform students expect of --

suspect of extremism. Is that the stuff of the bleak world of Tinker

Tailor Soldier Spy? Are asking us to protect our shores from foreign

enemies is nothing new, but this week, David Cameron wants us to

turn our focus on our neighbours. want everyone in the country to

help with this, including by reporting suspected illegal

immigrants to our border agency. is not just immigrants. They want

us to report on suspected Muslim extremists, welfare cheats and even

people who dump litter. Is this vital to keep us safe? Or will it

make us suspicious and fearful of neighbours, colleagues and friends

and family? Of the underwear boma, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, pleaded

guilty this week of attempting to block the train. -- plane. The

Government has asked lecturers to inform on their students if they

think the same thing is happening to them. Lecturers say that that

would damage the trust between teacher and student and point out

that radical thinking can be a right of passage for young,

enquiring minds. But if the goal is preventing terrorism, should we all

inform on each other's views? And what about benefit cheats and

illegal immigrants? If they are taking public money, do we have a

duty to report them? Should we rise to the challenge and do our bit? Or

will it make Britain feel more like Cold War Russia? If you have a

webcam, make your point on Skype, or join the conversation on Twitter

or e-mail. Is this a throwback to eastern Europe in the cold war?

at all. Anyone who knows what happened during the Cold War can

possibly make that comparison. Informing on neighbours? As far

shopping illegal immigrants, which is what David Cameron asked for, I

think this is a question of citizenship. If you pay into the

system, and there are people here illegally who have never paid into

the system, of course they are costing everybody. Your duty as a

citizen should not be so much of a problem, to stop that. As for

reporting on people who might well be becoming terrorists, again, if

you think somebody is likely to beat the sort of person who would

go and blow something up, who would not take interest? When the IRA was

at its height, who would not, if they saw a suitcase, look around

and say to everybody, whose is this? That was not spying on people,

it was just being a good citizen. Otherwise, what do you do, get off

the train and leave the rest to it? Responsible citizenry? I think this

as a parallel with the banking crisis. Certain bankers and

institutions borrowed lots of money and then they are in trouble and we

are asked to bail them out. This is the same. The Government has been

negligent in its border controls. It knows it has 500,000 illegal

immigrants, Melanie Phillips wrote a book about 3000 cells of Muslim

extremists in London. They should get rid of those before they turn

on the citizens and say, you do the job. It is not an either-or. We

could agree that the Government has lost many illegal immigrants and

still want to help them. Are you suggesting we should not help and

punish the Government? It is a bad thing to ask citizens to spy on one

another. This is not the same as what you're saying about a back

left on the train. That is common sense. Sniffing around, making

inquiries... Nobody has been asked to do that. That is wrong. Nobody

has been asked to spy on anyone. The Government has asked that where

people are in a position of supervision over young people and

they see somebody becoming the type of person -- the type of person

whose radical and the here than espousing views that will lead to

mass murder then they should say something. Francis, you are in a

university and you here somebody saying something controversial,

perhaps, about the Taliban or of high-def, would you feel it was

your duty to report them? I would feel it was my duty not to, because

all adhering is an opinion. You're suggesting that what we might end

up doing is saying well, this person seems to hold an opinion

that is rather similar to that of the Palestinian Authority or rather

similar to someone else, so we must report them to police. That is a

short road to Stalin's Russia. What concerns me is that of course to

write to say that if you see an unattended suitcase you or I would

have reported that, but reporting a suitcase is entirely different to

reporting a human being. The difficulty you get when you are

reporting human beings is that it is open to vengeful people, it is

open to becoming a way of paying off scores. That is what happened

under Stalin. Let us talk to a human being who got reported.

Arrested and finally released without charge after downloading

the Al-Qaeda Manual for research at University. You were reported to

police by a staff member, but did they have a duty to inform on you

if you're downloading the Al-Qaeda Firstly, the Al-Qaeda up training

manual sounds dangerous, it is actually available in WH with 49

per and 99. Do they have a duty to report? -- it is available in WH

Smith. The problem with the security agenda is that it is not a

crime is being committed, it is people using emotive and on

occasion prejudiced understanding to use indicators that are very,

very ambiguous and then refer that on to higher powers or the state.

That is very, very dangerous. In the case of my arrest and release

without charge, it shows when you provide that responsibility to

administrators and managers who are trained in to our sessions on how

to report someone as a suspected terrorist will not, you are

treading on extremely dangerous territory. No one doubts mistakes

have been made and more will be made in the future. No law and its

pursuit is ever perfect. But there have been cases here which have

nothing in them. But on the other hand there have been cases where

people have not reported situations when they have been people who

conspire to carry out terrorist actions. There was conviction of a

student in Scotland he was looking at beheading videos on his

university computer and nobody reported him precisely because they

feared that if they did they would be accused of being prejudiced in

some way. That person was someone who went on to be convicted for

terrorist acts. But of course, mistakes will be made and have been

made, but we should not return this is something it shouldn't concern

us. The individual Douglases referring to was actually acquitted

even though he was convicted under the Terrorism Act. He was

eventually acquitted and released and it was declared to be a

miscarriage of justice. I just like to clarify that. Let me ask you,

you were cleared, released without charge. But if you were sitting

alongside somebody at their computer and they were looking at

videos, because there are videos available to of atrocities, and

they were murmuring things about being supportive, would you think,

that's fine? We are in a university, that is OK, or would you have

concerns and would you feel their duty to alert somebody to that?

will not, and I say this live on TV, I will not report any one unless I

have evidence that they are involved in an act of criminality

or in conspiracy to commit one. As simple as that. We have a common

law system in this country which is more than suitable and equipped to

deal with people committing crimes or inciting people. We should be

using this to the full extent rather than going into an extremely

ambiguous agenda and recommending people merely on the views they

profess. We must remember that those views, as morally

reprehensible as they may be, are not illegal. To criminalise that,

especially in a university context, is damaging. The Muslim director of

an organisation called Capital a century is here. -- Sentry. You

want people to report on people if you suspect their views might be

dodgy. Is that one way to describe it? But some say unless there is

direct evidence of criminality, that is not anyone's duty. I think

the government when it talks about the prevented to view these are

alluding to tackling the motivation that drives somebody to carry out

terrorist attacks. If we can't do that, we might as well pack up and

do nothing. There are university organisations which promote the

heat speakers and preachers who are actually promoting things like

killing homosexuals, suicide bombings which are theologically

justified, people in favour of domestic violence and attacks on

British troops. If we do not tackle the motivation behind the things

which drive the pathway to someone being radicalised through terrorism

we will have more problems. Here lies one of the key problems. We

are not talking about thought police or opinion, we are talking

about organisations in universities where students, at least half a

dozen members who have been charged or waiting to be charged or

terrorism. We have preachers who are practising and preaching on

campus without being challenged. That is where we need to focus.

you don't need to spy on people in order to expose that sort of thing.

If somebody writes that they think every man ought to beat his wife up,

you don't really need a spy to say, hang on, there is something

difficult fear. What we are talking about his way you suspect something,

as we spoke a few moments ago. He simply downloaded some material for

research purposes that might have been used by someone with malign

intent. That seems to be the danger. May I ask you a question? If we

have preacher's coming on campus and saying that women should be

beaten and saying attacks on British troops are justified and

saying to young, vulnerable Muslims, without being challenged, that if

you don't believe in these use you're not a Muslim, what should we

do about it? Nobody is arguing that you leave those preachers alone. No

one is arguing that you do not report those preachers. What we are

arguing is that the students they talk to must be presumed innocent

and we should not be trying to to turn up their lecturers into police

spies over them. I think the people sitting in on these lectures or

speeches, if they started spouting the same views, we need to do

something. If we don't, we will see other bombers, people blowing

themselves up on the streets of London. What you are suggesting is

once we have people espousing similar views to the creatures we

just sit back and do nothing. I think that is nonsense and we have

The point is this. Everyone is in a pickle on this issue because it is

to do with Muslim students. Turn it around for a month. Imagine if a

society in the University week-in, week-out, invited members of the

BNP as the only spokes people to students on campus, not as one

point of view or challenged point of view, but the only people. The

BMP happens to be a legal organisation, likes of the

preachers, but they are a vile, bigoted racist organisation and we

were absolutely report people preaching races and on campus and

we should do it in this case as well, but people are scared of

tackling it because it is races and coming from Muslims. We have a

couple of other guests. We have the Student Federation of rigs up --

Islamic Society representative here. What would you do if you heard

someone exposing these use? -- espousing of these views. I think

the law protects us. If we find someone who is planning to do

something through violence, we report them. But we are looking at

the pathways and routes to extremism which are very ambiguous.

You have to have substantial evidence in order to convict

someone of extremism and in many Colonel Mike Dewar, is this

informing? Is it spying? Does it put people in tricky situations

that they are not qualified to deal with? I don't think anyone suggests

we try to replicate the East German state or Stalin's Russia. I don't

think we are say we are informing. It seems to me a relatively simple

issue and some of your speakers are suggested this. Let me interrupt

you. You say no one suggests it. One TEC says I grew up in communist

eastern Europe and I left in 1968 and we were scared to say things in

public in case our neighbours inform dollars. Is this going the

same way? What if your neighbour doesn't like you? I am giving you

my view, and I am saying that I do not believe that the government or

any thinking person is suggesting that we replicate those conditions.

The answer is No, not in democratic Britain. That having been said, our

responsibilities are quite clear and it is a matter of judgment. As

one of your earlier speakers were saying, sometimes we will get it

wrong and sometimes innocent people will be reported incorrectly but if

we have good reason to believe that life is threatened or that people

are inciting hatred or planning a crime, we have to be sure, and

sometimes we will be wrong, but there is no harm in society if we

report wrong doing. It seems to be fairly logical and simple. We are

creating a black and white issue which will always be blurred.

Mistakes will be made but we must do our best as responsible sitter

if we think young men or women or students have been unduly

influenced by a preacher and are adopting those views and becoming a

danger to society. We have to make a judgment. We have concentrated a

lot on preventing terrorism, but this also applies to benefit cheats,

illegal immigrants. Someone who describes themselves as an angry

old age pensioner in Devon, says, I would gladly grass and anyone who I

think is a threat to society or costing me as a taxpayer. I suppose

basically my opinion is that since the government caused this whole

problem with a very unthought out result of mass immigration it is up

to them to get it right, not to turn on to the citizens and asked

us to get it right. It is not an either or situation. The government

can improve its own record and individuals can play their part.

But this is about laws already in place being broken. There are laws

in the country against incitement. When people speak at camps as --

compasses -- campuses and there are known inciters of murder and sexual

minorities, that cannot be something which people turn a blind

eye to. Because they are turning their eye to the law. Coming up,

the government is considering plans to link our pension age to the life

expectancy. Is it our duty to give a bag goals of a retirement. --

Allah be the golden dream of an ice One man's story dominates moral

moment. Liam Fox's palette of taking his best friend to work with

him, was that a misguided bit of loyalty or a moral blip. Francis,

he fell on his sword eventually. That is what makes it a moral

moment rather than immoral. People talk about sexual scandals in

politics, but the real scandals in politics are always about money. It

seems to me that eventually he had to do that. There was a situation

where he had an adviser who was not paid as a political adviser or by

the country or the Conservative Party, but paid by people who make

money out of the defence of the country, the Ministry of Defence,

the people who sell arms. He was taking this adviser by himself to

meetings with heads of state, foreign generals. Clearly

indicating to those people that this was somebody who the Minister

trusts. This man was, in fact, a lobbyist. I have nothing against

lobbyists and I have nothing against political advisers, but you

can't mix the two. You've got to be one or the other. Douglas, you are

in the unique position in the studio in that you know the

individuals involved. As it happens, I know Adam Werrity and Liam Fox

and I think they are both very decent and honourable people and I

think they have had a week of having their reputation and lives

completely trashed by the press. I do think it is worth saying that

there was some blurring of the boundaries which should have been

looked at and should not have gone on this far, but the way in which

this week the press has reported this as Liam Fox becoming the story.

By Friday people said he had become the story. He became the story

because people kept making him the story. Which people had made him

It wasn't the newspapers they kept it going. Liam Fox kept it going by

drip-feeding information. He was continually giving as little

information as he could. He said boundaries have been blurred, not I

had bird -- blurred the boundaries. It should be the same role. It

would be no good for a rioter to go to court and say actually the

boundary was blurred between my television set and their television

set. Most things claim this week have not improved and most will not

be. There has been sheer speculation thrown out in this case.

The point I would make is that we do, as a country, have to make

decisions about what we expect from our politics. Do you think anything

went wrong here? Do you think Liam Fox and Adam Werrity did anything

wrong? I cannot see anything myself yet but there might be things to

come out. People are complaining when government have too many

advisers paid by the taxpayer. They complained when Nick Clegg had

unpaid people being exploited working for politicians. And there

is only other one way to do this, which is the somebody to be paid by

Liam Fox has had three paid advisers. You might need more than

three. You like to think that those in charge have moral guidance.

You're talking about judgment. It is not whether somebody's adviser

is paid or not paid, it is judgment. There is a perception that

government is far too close to big business at the present time. It is

only a couple of weeks ago that a four or something rather said that

actually, Economics in Europe is governed by Goldman Sachs. This

perception is damaging. But he was a very good Defence Secretary and I

think it is a tragedy that he was gone. Finisher., briefly. He may

have been a very good Defence Secretary but it is interesting

that Adam Werritty was Firstly or a health lobbyist, then suddenly

became a defence lobbyist when Liam Fox moved to Defence. That may have

been an error of judgment but he has shown terrific judgment at the

Ministry of Defence. You have been voting in our text poll. We asked,

his school sex-education bad for our children? That forties now

closed. -- that vote is. Betty -- Betty Driver died this weekend aged

91, a model of working right until the end. More of us will still live

to be 100, so should befall her example and get rid of retirement?

-- should we follow her example. Betty Driver who played Betty

Williams in Coronation Street died aged 91 yesterday. She said she

would never retire. I love working. I will never retire. They will have

to shoot me to get rid of May. tributes pour in, should we follow

her example? When the state pension was introduced one century ago,

life expectancy was 50. Most people never lived to retire at all but

now we are live in to 80 and more of us will soon reach 100. Should

we sit around on a pension for more or than 30 years? Most people would

say they have paid their dues and deserve to retire but would we be

happier and the country wealthier if we all worked until we dropped?

The NHS is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after the

elderly. If we want peace and free health care, should we not be

prepared to work longer to pay for it. Public sector pensions at,

including those for MPs, are going to cost us more than �33 billion by

2016. Our children's taxes may eventually have to go up to pay for

them. The Government got rid of compulsory retirement this month,

so that we can all work as long as we like. Is it our duty to work

until we drop, to pay the country's bills? Or, after working for

decades, do we all deserve a rest? Join in by webcam, phone, text, e-

mail or online. When would you like to give up working? I don't suppose

I never shall. It is like asking an actor or a priest or a cellist when

they're going to stop. They are never going to, because their work

is their life. For most people, their family is their life. Should

we abolish retirement for everybody? There are so many jobs,

and acting is not one of them, that are dirty and unpleasant and people

do it because they have to keep their family are fed, and it is

highly paid. It is fair to offer them retirement. It is a business

transaction. You pay a certain amount in so that you can take a

certain amount out. That ought to be sacrosanct. If you want to go on

working, you ought to be allowed to. You might well have skills and was

then that is still valuable. that is everybody's choice. The

default age has been abolished, but should we make people work longer?

No. That is at the centre of this, nobody is arguing that you should

stop people working who want to work. I would certainly want to

work. I would argue that the economic necessity to work should

be removed from people once they get older than I am now. Not too

much older, I hope. They should be able to enjoy a retirement. It is

not that retirement is a time to lie down and put on your slippers,

people going to the University of the Third Age and things like that,

where what they do is useful and interesting, things that they have

never been able to study before. It seems to me that if we're going to

have a decent society, that sort of retirement should be right. Europe

retired teacher, Sheila, but you still do voluntary work. -- You are

a retired teacher. Are you an advocate of continuing to work?

You're still paid to work? I am still pay to work, yes. I retired

the summer before last when I was 60, and then I decided that I would

like to go back and use my experience and skills with

disturbed children who are no longer able to cope with education.

I am paid for it and I enjoy it but that was my choice. You're using

the skills that you have built up, and you're still being paid to work.

You worry wonderful example of why people are able to carry on. So why

not argue that they should carry on? You're contributing. The fact

is I do not think people should be forced. That was my choice. My

health is good and I like being in the classroom. There are other

people who would like to do otherwise, because their health is

maybe not so good or the need to spend time with all the appearance

or grandchildren. They want to spend their time doing other things.

If we link pension age to life expectancy, one organisation has

said that somebody who is 70 now will not be retiring until they are

77 in the year 2071. I could believe that. Is that a good thing?

It might just be fact, something that we have to find a way around.

Events may make sure it happens. When the welfare state started,

most men were expected to live once you're over their retirement age.

Now it is around 15 years plus. -- won here over their retirement age.

This is a huge change. Economically, we will not be able to pay for more

people living longer. In America, by 2030, the number of people who

won in retirement will have doubled, but the number of people in work

will have only gone up by 18%. You cannot support the retirees on that.

James's from the Spectator. When do you expect to stop working? When I

drop. I do not think I will have any option. I love the idea that I

might be able to enjoy a retirement like my parents enjoy, where they

like my parents enjoy, where they go regularly on lovely holidays

abroad and play golf and have some money to give two grandchildren.

This is a model that will not work any more. As Douglas says, we have

to deal not with what ought to be but what actually is. Is it the

but what actually is. Is it the case that teachers can retire very

much earlier than the average retirement age? Yes, you can retire

at 55 if you choose to. But you have to bear in mind several things.

If you retire early, you get your pension according to that date. You

do not get the full pension. The same is true if you give up, as I

did, full-time teaching to work with children, then those years are

missed out. It has to be made clear that in terms of teachers' pensions,

they are funded by the Teachers' superannuation fund. This is not

taxpayers' money, this is our money. We have paid as we were working

into a pension fund. That is the money that we are paid out of. It

is our money, not taxpayers' money. Can I make another point? We are

looking at 40% of young people being unemployed. The highest

graduate unemployment figures we have ever seen. These are the

people who need jobs, who want jobs and should be trained and given

that opportunity, not all people forced to work past when they would

like to. Sheila, tell me, if I am right, about this. A teacher who

retires at 55, the pensioners at a level where that they will have a

thin time of it if they do not work again? That is right. They will be

able to cope but it will not be luxurious. It is not the sort of

retirement that the chap from the spectator was talking about.

but if that is what people choose, then I think that is the right that

everyone should have. We have strong unions who fight for rights.

Let us go back to you. If you carry on working, you will be blocking a

job, James. Sorry, but at least two of your panellists are living in

of your panellists are living in cloud cuckoo land. We feel that we

have paid our dues and we ought to have a lovely retirement but you

have to deal with the reality. In the 50 years since the war we have

been living in a ponzi scheme. There is no money available to

support people to be able to retire at 55. They are going to have to

keep working, whether they like it or not, regardless of whether they

are blocking imaginary jobs for younger people. Older people can

provide good skills into the labour market. They are wiser, more

experienced. It is not a bad thing but we have to deal with this.

me take that point. I cannot lead me take that point. I cannot lead

to because we are almost out of time. Thank you so much. Our work

here is almost done but we have to tell you the result of the text

poll. His sex-education bad for our kids? Here is what you told us. 55%

of those of you who tested in said of those of you who tested in said

that yes, it is bad for children. 45% say no, it is not. Actually,

Lynette, roughly balanced. More on my side. Most people think what I

think, that children do not need it, given by a stranger, where you

cannot monitor it. Almost anywhere else except for pornography, of

course, you can get it. Surprised by the results, Francis and

Douglas? Not particularly surprised. It does not change my view that if

parents refused to provide full sex education for their children, they

are depriving them of a human right that children have to be brought up

properly and to be taught the things they need to know. Rubbish.

You have 10 seconds. It is not about whether they should be, it is

what and when. That is what it is four. Thank you for taking part.

four. Thank you for taking part. Lynette Burrows, Francis Beckett

and Douglas Murray. Do not text or call any more because the form