Episode 8 Sunday Morning Live

Lord Sugar says politicians should face prosecution if they lie.

He wants MPs to face the same scrutiny as business,

On the apprentice, you admire a good salesperson, and a good salesperson,

at times, has to embellish the truth. No, I'm sorry. Long term, a

good salesperson has to tell the truth. Have you ever lied before?

Only about the tooth fairy. Channel 4 is going ahead

with the broadcast of tapes of Do the royal family

deserve more privacy? And we debate the ethics of shooting

animals for sport as a charity uses One of the first things we have come

up with is a pheasant casserole and partridge curry.

All that coming up - and Emma Barnett is here ready

We want you to get in touch with your views on our

You can contact us by Facebook and Twitter -

don't forget to use the hashtag #bbcsml.

Or text SML followed by your message to 60011.

Texts are charged at your standard message rate.

Or email us at [email protected].

However you choose to get in touch, don't forget to include your name

so I can get you involved in the programme.

For instance, you may have strong views about new genetic research

on embryos which might help eliminate some

But could it also open the door to designer babies?

I'll be putting that to a leading scientist in the field later.

But first, something else to get you talking.

Well, Lord Sugar, a business leader and television star,

says one way to improve that is to prosecute politicians

I went to see him to find out more - and found myself facing him

across a boardroom table just like in his TV series

You're fired. You're fired. Lord Sugar, I want to start by

asking you what you want to make it a criminal offence for a politician

to lie? Because I think the ramifications of some of the

promises or lives that they have made have endangered the population.

It is as simple as that. As an example, the moving out of the

European Union, I'm not sure that the majority of the electorate

really understood the full ramifications of it. We were

disastrously led into it by lies, big lies. Would you want politicians

in jail? I would, I would put Gove and Johnson in jail for what they

said. For what they promised in the referendum? It should be a criminal

offence because they are responsible politicians who blatantly, and they

cannot argue against this, printed a figure of ?350 million on the side

of a bus and implied that is what we pay to the European Union every

week, oh, and by the way, we will take that 350 and throw it in to the

National help. But people will say, on The Apprentice, you admire a good

salesperson, and a good salesperson at times has to embellish the truth.

No, I'm sorry. Longer term a good salesperson has to tell the truth.

They won't tell the bad points, they will see the positives of the

product and the negatives... It is not for them to tell the bad side,

it is for the person who is selling to ask questions... Is that not

embellishing? Not really, you are not hiding anything. But you see how

it is close to the line? It depends what kind of salesman you are

talking about. If it is Del Boy and Rodney, you are right, they would

break the rules. But Del Boy and Rodney are not politicians, they

have not been voted by people to represent them and that is the

difference. Have you ever lied before? Only about the tooth fairy.

Really? The way you are smiling I don't think that is true! Somethings

are effectively a lie, but no serious lies. Your business I'm sure

it is perfectly sound but there are not that are not doing exactly the

right thing, maybe telling lies, and you can get away with it in

business, card you? It depends, not in a public company you can't. As a

past chairman of three public companies, it was my obligation to

write a chairman's statement to the shareholders that was audited by

individual people and they would challenge me, how can you say that

you are going to do this, how can you say you are going to do that?

Very tight scrutiny. All I'm saying is that the manifesto should be

vetted prior to them going public. Morally, should be vetted by

independent people. But what you would get is a lot of bland

manifestos because politicians are scared stiff of saying something

that perhaps is not going to work? Economies change, things change. I

have no problem with people in their election manifesto coming out with

statistics. The only problem I have got is, get them right, get the

numbers right. In the case of Mr Corbyn, when you say that you are

going to try to cancel student fees, maybe think about re-funding, that

statement is ?100 billion, you cannot make that statement because

an auditor or an economist would advise, don't say that because you

will never be able to pull it off. It could be argued, and he would

argue, I didn't promise it, so it is not a lie, but come on, you are

talking to 18, 19-year-old students who will take that as, well, I will

have some of that, I will definitely have some of that. Let's talk about

your fellow host of The Apprentice across the pond, Donald Trump. Is he

not a great example of politicians in England getting more scrutiny

than businessmen? He did what he likes, now he is getting more

scrutiny. I think you are right, as a businessman he could just turn

around and say, we are going to paint all our buildings green

tomorrow, get on with it. In the White House of course he cannot just

say, we are going to do this and do that, he has had if you slap backs,

as we speak right now there is turmoil in the White House and yet

Donald, he will go on Twitter and say, isn't life great, haven't I

done well so far? Everything I promised has come true! In fact,

actually, not really, you have not done anything yet, but he will write

that down in a tweet and a lot of the population will believe it

because he said it. You are overlord, of course. Would you

consider a move into front line politics? Absolutely not. Why?

Because it is a thankless, hopeless task. In my 70 years I have never

heard a member of the public say, what a great Prime Minister we have,

how good things are, isn't it nice, isn't it wonderful? I think they are

nuts, they must be nuts to take that on. Lord Sugar, thank you very much

indeed. OK, thanks a lot. So should it be illegal

for politicians to lie, particularly Joining us now to discuss

that are Peter Hitchens, And Gina Miller,

a businesswoman and campaigner. Jena, you heard Lord Sugar there,

should it be a criminal offence for politicians to lie? I think there

are degrees of lie and there should be degrees of punishment. There

should be punishment for politicians who lie, I see it a bit like a code

of ethics or being a doctor, if a politician lies and breaks that code

of ethics, they should be struck off and not be allowed to be a

politician again. If it is a more serious lied then there is a

consequence to the country and I think there should be ramifications.

Gove and Johnson? The referendum is irreversible, but with general

elections you just vote them out. I think Mr Gove in particular said it

is fine to lie on the electable -- electoral Trail, and I think he

should be facing consequences for that. Electoral lies are enormous

for the country and they should be held responsible. Exploiting fear by

lying has become more visible and there is far more of it in politics

and that is worrying to all of us so we will have to bring in something

that stops that flow and building up of lies that is happening. Peter,

you are not known for your love of politicians, would you banged them

up? Apart from the practical work ability of it, the selective victor

's justice which would follow if people were prosecuted by the

Government, practices such as that, it is ridiculous for us to pretend

that politicians are the only ones involved in dishonesty at elections.

In the old saying it used to be said that people pretended to work and

the Government pretended to pay them. In our elections, the

politicians pretend to have these manifestos and we pretend to believe

them and that is why we have got into the mess we have. Blatant lies

are told by people bribing us with our own money and one of the reasons

why democracy is going so rapidly down is precisely because of that

soap to turn on politicians and blamed them for playing a game that

we played with the same enthusiasm is ridiculous. You cannot bring the

public, if they are all lying... You can certainly bring the public

because the public's self-deception is one of the reasons why this

country is in debt nationally and individually, we will not face up to

the reality of the situation, we would rather be lied to them told

the truth. If a politician went into an election and said, this is the

real state of the country, we don't make and export enough, we have to

increase income tax or council tax is very heavily to balance the

national books, they would lose the election. Emma has a guest with

years of political experience. I'm joined now by the former Tory MP

and Cabinet minister Edwina Currie. Good morning. Let me correct you on

something I said, I would not wish it to be known as a lie when you

said I was a cabinet minister, Margaret Thatcher did not have any

female cabinet ministers, I was a Government minister. Honest from the

start! Should politicians ever be prosecuted for lying to the public?

Well, they are under electoral law, it is an electoral offence. Phil

Willis, for example, a Labour Government minister in 2010, fought

an election with lies on his leaflets. Unfortunately his opponent

was a millionaire businessman who took him to a electoral Court, the

election was swept to one side and he was banned for three years from

taking part in any election campaigns. So it can be done. Do you

think those rules can be updating in light of something like the EU

referendum where there was, as some people put it, a big lie on the side

of above about how much money would come back into the NHS if we let the

European Union, would you specifically put Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson in prison or have him prosecuted? Part of the problem in a

fast-moving campaign is the speed of doing this, the lie is around the

world before the truth has put its boot on and the cumbersome process

as Peter Hitchens has just pointed out where you would have to have it

checked and have lawyers and all the rest of it, by that time you have

got the election done and voting has been done and people have taken the

decision. Of course the best lies are the ones where there is an

element of truth. I was a Remain campaign but it is true that we make

a substantial net contribution to the EU and at some point in the

future when we are out of it we won't be making that and that money

might be available for other things. So you don't sound like you want to

put Boris Johnson in the can yet, what about Jeremy Corbyn's promises

about student debt? Alan Sugar misquoted him of it, what Corbyn

said was that he would deal with student debt. You can read into that

whatever you like but if you are talking to a bunch of students and

young people they are likely to think, that will mean no student

debt, it will mean no fees in future, that would be absolutely

great, we will vote for that so a million of them did and some of them

even voted twice which is of course another electoral offence. Let's

stick with this for the moment, can you honestly say now you never lied

while you were in politics? Of course I occasionally like that

sometimes it was because the truth was so unpalatable that people find

it very, very hard and sometimes you had to say to people, look, you are

not going to like what I am going to tell you, particularly with

constituents, but I won't lie to you, and they would then try to find

somebody else for a second opinion because that is what they prefer.

Peter Hitchens referred to... What is an example that you lied about?

Anything major that you regret? For example I represented a coal mining

constituency, it was obvious the pits were going to close, they had

been worked for many years, they were worked out, dangerous, heavily

subsidised to keep people there. We were going to have to find something

else for people to do. It was not at the time of the miners strike when

these men were at work, unpalatable thing to stand up and make speeches

about, but in the aftermath of the miners strike when people realised

change had to come, that was the approach that I took and indeed we

got Toyota so we were successful. Thank you for that. Not palatable,

you don't say the truth at the time. Sometimes the truth is more harmful.

Good time to bring in our lying expert! You have written a book

about lying, did you lie in the book? I lie about everything! Our

politicians worse than the general public? If anything they probably

lie less than the general public because whatever they say is exposed

to a unforgiving scrutiny and they have to be very careful about what

they say. I think the reason we start to think of them as a bit

shifty and dishonest is that they are always guarding themselves

against any possible situation where they could be lying and the fact is

people like all the time, we all like all the time, that is a big

thing when I talked to psychologists who study this for a living for my

book, they have various theories of how mining works and why people like

that what all agree is that people lie habitually and it is part of

daily life, so one psychologist found this figure which is that

people lie three times within ten minutes of meeting each other, so we

only met a few minutes ago I have probably told a few porkies! Another

one found that people lie on average twice a day, which is probably

right. The lies which really make people

angry are the lies that are told to damage the innocent persons, bearing

false witness, or lies to gain advantage over other people in

fairy. Those lives matter and they are told in politics and business as

well. Are business people worse than politicians? You have painted quite

a good picture politicians. I think just as bad, if not worse. I work in

business and the idea that business is more honest than politics is

ridiculous, I think. Business people exaggerate and prevaricate all the

time, so do we. People in all walks of life have risen to the top who

have sticks and carrots as to why they are lying. For some it is

advancement, sometimes the stickers that you will be sacked or not

promoted. I expect politicians to be better. I don't want them to be

lying. What I think is very worrying is the increase in lining and how

visible it is, playing on people's fears. When you lie in politics and

you exacerbate people's fears, it is not responsible and you have do have

some checks and balances when it comes to lying back creates fear.

Politicians have been lying for years, Jonathan Aiken, Jeffrey

Archer. When Winston Churchill was asked about lying he said I have

lied many times for my country but less frequently to my country, that

is the difference. The public and the media are lot more connected

through social media, so we can share our views of he was lying, it

goes on social media and everybody sees it. We could not do that

before. The public are partially to blame. Looking at the end of 2016,

only 50% of the population trust politicians, but how vocal are they

add saying I don't trust you? They are willing to take the lie because

it is easier, perhaps. Five years of moaning that politicians always lie,

30 seconds in the polling booth to vote for the same people. We have

had an awful lot of stuff about the referendum campaign, as a supporter

of this country leaving the European Union I completely accept that the

Leave campaign behaved disgracefully in some of the things they did, but

so did Remain. Both sides. The whole thing began with Ted Heath telling

an enormous whopper about how joining the then Common Market would

not affect British sovereignty and independence, a complete and

absolute falsehood and the row has rested on but ever since. The idea

it is one-sided or new is incorrect. I think both sides lied. Who will

decide he was lying and he was not? Who will decide weather or not the

promise about the NHS is a lie? Will that be decided in the courts? The

people who voted on that basis do not necessarily think that, you have

that view. The way we punish politicians for lying is by putting

them out of office, once we have decided they are dishonest... Let's

get social media. Hopefully we do fact checking at the BBC as

journalists. Something that Edwina Currie said with regards to Phil

Willis, the CPS did not go ahead without prosecution.

One person on Twitter says manifestos can be made legally

binding as situations might change. Robert says lying occasionally is a

requirement of politics. We had to be realistic that nobody will ever

meet every single manifesto pledge promised. Bob says politicians get

away with all sorts of behaviour that would see the rest of us in

court. If we lied at work we would be sacked. Paul says prosecute

politicians for lying? We would have to build a new prison after every

election. Thanks for that, Paul, we like the practicality.

Peter, how can we make politicians more honest? A more educated

electorate is what you need. The real crisis of our country is in the

collapse of education since the destruction of the grammar schools

in the 60 's, since when people have been taught what to think but not

how to think. If you can't think, how can you possibly judge whether

somebody should be elected into Government? Have you ever told a big

lie in your job? You are really called out in my job if you lie in

print club. I have lied in person, no doubt. Your body language was not

good. You can doubtless find it if I have. Yes or no? I think we all tell

lies to some degree, in the investment world when you tell the

truth there is a price to pay, you get less votes, less customers but

it is the right thing to do. It is about the conditions that

politicians operating, it is not that they are particularly bad at

lying. No light, we are out of time. Thank you for joining us.

Next week marks what some describe as the glorious 12th -

the official start of the shooting season for red grouse in the UK,

during which hundreds of thousands of the birds are shot

The day is often marked by protests from animal rights campaigners.

But a charity has begun a scheme to use game birds such as pheasant

and partridge to provide meals for people in need.

The former England cricket captain Sir Ian Botham says he plans

to donate 10,000 birds from his shooting

Wendy Robbins went to find out more about the scheme.

Shooting birds in the UK. All it has long been a controversial subject.

However it remains a firm and legal fixture in our countryside and a big

part of life in Rowell communities. I caught up with Sebastien Green,

who organises shoots. I know the shooting season is soon to begin,

can you take me through broadly what happens on a shoot? Ago there are

various forms of shooting, it can be driven shooting where birds are

driven towards people who shoot, there is walked up shooting where

people who shoot the birds will walk towards them. The shooting community

contribute ?2 billion towards the rural economy, it is quite

significant. Tim Woodward is a former commodity

broker who left his job in the City last year as he wanted to set up a

charity to help tackle food poverty. Sebastien suggested a way to achieve

that. Sebastien told me about this idea he had of really utilising meet

to feed people in need. We started exploring that idea. -- utilising

meat. How do you feed people? We went to be by charities and asked

what they do not have. They said they get a lot of low nutritional

value products but they are missing really good protein and meat. We

looked at a wide array of meat and the first thing we came up with is a

pheasant casserole and a partridge curry. What made you think about

that? In the countryside at the moment there is a wide availability

of those two meats, the price has come down in recent years and we

thought we might appeal to people in those environments to help us by

maybe donating their meat to us. The charity is looking to donate

125,000 meals this year. TV chef Tim Adams is their food adviser. The

nutritional value of game meat is, generally speaking, higher than

comparable farmed meat. High in protein, exceptionally low in fat by

comparison to fund meat because it has had a longer life, grown over a

greater period. It is more nutrient dense, partly because it is moved

around a lot and partly because of a more varied diet. I was interested

to know what it was about this charity that attracted him. I am

proud to be part of the Country Food Trust and what they are doing, there

are a lot of hungry people for what different reasons. When you look at

that problem and you say we want to feed them, how can we help, you

start looking for low value products to feed them, and I am talking about

monetary value, not nutritional value. One of the no-brainers at the

right time of year is game meat. Pheasant and partridge particularly,

available in a very short period of time that become incredibly cheap.

You can give it away to people who are hungry.

Game meat might be nutritious but for some people there are big

ethical questions about killing birds for sport. Some people feel,

this is their concern, that what you are doing is taking something

distasteful to them, shooting birds for sports, and making it acceptable

by giving to charity in the way you are doing. I think that you could be

made but it did not cross our minds when we started. Clearly some people

are very much against shooting and some people are very much in favour,

and a large sector of people might not have a view. As a charity we are

not lobbying for against. If you have an issue with shooting

that is your right, campaign about it and fight for a change in the

law. But don't in the meantime stop is taking a low value commodity with

a very high nutrient wealth and giving it to people who are hungry,

don't mix those two arguments. Wendy Robbins with an example of how

birds shot for sport can be used But hunting and shooting remain

controversial and can generate strong passions both

for and against. So let's discuss - is it ethical

to shoot animals for sport? Joining us now are Phillippa King,

the director of The League Jim Barrington is from

the Countryside Alliance. Bonnie Greer is a

playwright and novelist. And Peter Hitchens

the journalist is still with us. Philippa, starting with you, is

there some good coming out of shooting in terms of feeding people

who do not have enough food or food with lots of protein in it, then

surely that is better in your eyes? I would argue that people who go to

food banks need the basics like bread, milk, cheese, sugar and

flour. There is another dark aspect to this that in 2012 the Food

Standards Agency put out a warning that people should not eat too merge

game bird that has been shot by lead. Let's can cause brain injuries

and nervous system problems. -- lead can cause. It is great people want

to help people going to food banks, not a problem. The charity said they

tested their first production run for traitors of lead, results were

very low and well within the EU regulations and they will continue

to test each production run going forward. In terms of the food you

mentioned, the food banks, none of them had a great deal of protein. So

people using food bank should not eat meat? Ago but is not my point at

all. But testing them,, I am really pleased they are testing but the

Food Standards Agency says you should not eat too much game bird

shot by lead. About charities that give food to children or pregnant

women, they are thinking about these things and they are within the

regulations. In the shooting season there was

100,000 birds shot a day. They are reared to be shot, in the most awful

circumstances. They are in message toe mesh cages, they are not

indigenous birds, lots get chipped in. -- they are in mesh cages. This

board, again, is this a sport? It is not a level playing field. Jim, you

used to be part of the organisation of Philippa is in bits you have

changed sides? I looked up the facts. When you start to portray

something is just killing for sports, then it gives people who do

not have much to do with that activity a skewed view. This has a

utilitarian outcome, as so many forms of shooting and hunting do.

Not all, but they can't all be lumped together as Chris Packham

seems to do with his animal rights agenda. It has a benefits. You had

to look at that benefit and equally you have to look at the

consequences. If you stop these activities. It benefits humans, what

about the birds who are pretty much battery hens? That is a debate.

Personally I do not eat meat, but when people are eating literally

billions of intensively reared birds, to say that shooting free

range birds, which is what this is... They are not free range...

When they are out they are. They have many conservation benefits

which provide and keep a unique part of the countryside, the heathland.

Bonnie? We need to separated. It is wonderful to feed people, you

shouldn't say they should not eat gross, they should eat what they

need to. It is a cover for so-called sport, which is about people running

around the countryside in funny costumes and screaming.

There was nothing wrong with it, but don't tie on some kind of book about

people eating as a result of it. It is not about eating, it is about

doing what they want to do, but you should not connect the two. This is

itself a cover for a class war campaign. It is not about class war.

Let's keep a sense of proportion, millions, possibly billions of

chickens reared in the most disgusting conditions, pigs as well,

in this country and other countries, cattle, to be fed. The proportion of

this in comparison to the amount of shooting is vast. But there are

regulations. If you let me finish my point I can shut up afterwards. Here

is the point, I have enormous respect for vegetarians and

freedoms, I am not want, but if someone who is a vegetarian or begin

can object to the shooting of game birds, anybody who makes a fuss

about a very small number of game birds being shot and says nothing at

all about battery and factory produced meat which they willingly

eat, says nothing about conditions in many slaughterhouses which

provide the meat to eat, seems to me to be missing the point and losing

all sense of proportion and attacking something they don't do

while leaving something alone which they do do. Ayew a vegetarian? No,

I'm not. You said a small amount of birds, it is about 35 million birds

a year which are reared and shot, they don't have the regulations that

farm animals do, we have all seen... Regulations are really helpful to

the chickens. We all know those regulations due to be tight end but

we are talking about people going out for pleasure to shoot animals on

a mass scale at which about 30 or 40% don't get shot cleanly because

when people have adrenaline going in a sporting environment, study

showed... Let Philippa speed. About 100,000 birds a day are shot and

most of those go into the pit, not the pot. They are just disregarded.

Let's eat more of them. For people that just do that for enjoyment for

one day. Let's bring in Emma now,

who has a guest who is firmly I'm joined now by Diggory Hadoke,

an author and hunter. What animals do you shoot? All sorts

of things since I first had a gun at eight years old, I started with

rabbits around local farms, progressed to a shotgun later in

life shooting pheasants and pigeons again around the farms. By the time

I was about 30 I started getting involved in driven game shoot and

while fouling and I also shoot deer on bases in Scotland, mainly row and

red deer. I hunt in Africa as well. The African side of things is

slightly separate, we will get onto that the moment. Would you say what

you do you do as a sport, as fun? Read a rather lame article in the

Guardian this week which criticised me as an apologist for shooting and

I would say I am an advocate of shooting, I don't think there is

anything to apologise for. Shooting is a great sport and it is a sport

which has been part and parcel of English country life for as long as

we have had society. Many things have been part and parcel of English

life that we have got rid of, which are no longer appropriate. If you

say it is a sport you understand why some people may feel

uncomfortable about your sport? I think some people live very

different lives. If you have grown up in the countryside and hunt for

utility and sport it is a normal part of everyday life. If you are

based in an urban environment it seems utterly alien to you and you

cannot understand it but ignorance should not be a basis for banning

things which numbers show are beneficial and healthy. You

mentioned you have been out to Africa which speaks to trophy

hunting, I don't know what you hunted out there but how do you

defend that, what did you hide? I have hunted all sorts of things in

Africa, I have been out to shoot pigeons over sunflower crops where

the annual sunflower crop loses about 30% of what is grown to

predation by pigeons and guinea fowl so I have been out to shoot those...

You don't go to Africa to shoot pigeons, what were the big game

targets? I have been to Africa to shoot pigeons on many occasions, it

is a very good thing to do and a good sport. I have also hunted

buffalo in Tanzania, I have been on as a journalist and accompanying

Hunter on an elephant hunt in Botswana, a lion hunt in Tanzania,

numerous opportunities to hunt buffalo and things so I have

reasonable experience of hunting in Africa for all sorts of things. You

don't have any empathy with people who have an issue with that? Well,

again, lots of people have emotional reactions to all sorts of things and

have a personal moral objection to them, which is fine, but don't try

to impose them on other people. I don't think... I think in order to

object to something and call for a ban on it, you need to show that it

does harm and all empirical studies show hunting in Africa does a lot of

good and really areas where hunting is the conservation strategy of

choice, often the only one that works. Diggory, you have put your

view across there, thank you for sharing it this morning. Always good

to hear what you were thinking at home, thank you for getting in

touch, I'm sure more responses will come in, but Paul says, when you

deliberately raise these birds with the intention of shooting them for

sport then yes, it is absolutely pathetic.

Shooting birds is OK, say someone else, but only if birds are allowed

to shoot back! Another one, Chris says, there is a

reason we are the top of the food chain, it means we can eat whatever

we want. Very interesting debate there. Even

more interesting seeing your reaction, Bonnie! He says you are

just being emotional. This guy obviously like shooting, fine, but

the thing is, the question with the birds, giving birds to homeless

people, that is why it is OK to do that, those are two different point.

It is good to feed people, nothing wrong with that, but to have a

sport, and I'm not going to go out banning people from doing that, but

just as a general question, to have a sport on a built-up island, OK,

where it is completely almost urbanised and people are rushing

around with shotguns in costumes on horses and dogs that they breed, it

is absolutely ridiculous, and at the end of the day, we are going to talk

about it like that, that is what it is. You have got ten seconds. You

are portraying this as something it is not, this is wildlife management,

all of these activities have a benefit. You always hear what people

dislike but never what they are for. I gave you ten seconds and I have to

stick to that, we are out of time, thank you all very much indeed.

Still to come on Sunday Morning Live...

Marine Baig visits the community that welcomes people

A major scientific breakthrough was announced this week

as scientists discovered a way of editing embryos to remove

faulty DNA that causes life-threatening genetic conditions.

The study gives a glimpse into the possible future

of medicine, where genetically inherited disabilities

But it also provokes deep questions as to the ethics involved

Here to discuss this latest breakthrough

and the issues that arise from it is Professor Darren Griffin,

an expert in genetics from the University of Kent.

So this week is a big week in the world, can you explain in simple

terms what was discovered? Basically we have had a procedure called

preimplantation genetic diagnosis for about 25 years and that involves

the creation of a number of embryos and then the selection of those

thought to be unaffected with genetic disease. What is different

with this procedure is that it would take embryos that are thought to be

affected and the technology can correct that genetic defect so it

can put in a normal gene where there was previously an abnormal one. And

in this instance it removed heart disease? Yes, a particular type of

heart disease as a genetic component, you may recall the

footballers have her number, something similar to that. -- the

footballer Fabrice Muamba. There will be concerned that this could be

misused in a way that would not be good for us as humans, who would be

eligible for the treatment and how would it work in day-to-day life? Is

it just those going through IVF? By and large these would be people at

risk of transmitting genetic diseases, so a classic example would

be cystic fibrosis in Caucasian populations, one in 20 of us have a

copy of the faulty cystic fibrosis gene. So if you knew that you could

go to your doctor before procreating, if this was to become

law, and they, I would like to make my babies with the help of doctors

and have the gene removed? What can happen already if they can go to an

IVF clinic and the embryos, one or two embryos are selected and at the

moment people can have embryos selected that are free from the

disease, what would potentially be different in future if this ever

came to pass is if they found none of those were genetically normal

then one of those found to be abnormal could potentially be

corrected. What about the ethics of this? Let's say everybody was

eligible in some way, because there is concern which people could get

access to this and they could be a rich super race, we don't really

know the ramifications of removing the gene, putting warning, changing,

editing DNA. We have a number of issues, first of all the issue of

ethics itself, should we be meddling with embryos at all? At the moment

in the UK and the US, many other countries have legislation on this,

it is illegal to manipulate an embryo and go on and... Do you agree

with that? At the moment I think it is absolutely right because we have

safety concerns that need to be addressed so the procedure itself

can cause off target affects that need to be properly investigated and

one thing I am a huge advocate for is proper research before these

things go into clinical procedures. Then we need to consider the ethical

framework, yes on the one hand should we manipulate embryos at all,

but equally on the other hand, if we have the ability to do this and

there are families in need of it, is it ethical not to do it? This is the

framework. There is concern, I know it is a phrase used often with any

advance we hear about, designer babies, creating them, what issues

that poses? I thought you might mention that. Designer babies is a

phrase you hear a lot and I give public talks and I have bitten the

bullet and tongue in cheek call it that now... But it is a serious

concern. I have mixed feelings about the phrase but yes, there is a

concern about the way that we mitigate -- and the way that we

mitigate that if we have lawyers who work on social policy, philosophers,

ethicists, all of whom need to be involved in the debate considering

all of the pros and cons, the safety, the ethics of doing it, the

ethics of not giving it, then we come to review whether society, we

have the human fertilisation embryo authority formed many years ago and

by and large this sort of work is highly, highly regulated. So at the

moment you are aware of the issues but they need much more

investigation and that is where we are at the moment? Absolutely, and

the thing gives it is highly regulated and long should it remain

so. We will keep talking about it, I'm sure. Professor Darren Griffin,

thank you. Tonight Channel 4 will broadcast

a controversial documentary about Princess Diana which has been

called a betrayal of privacy. The programme uses recordings made

by the princess as part of a voice coaching course and reportedly

reveals intimate details This month sees the 20th anniversary

of the death of Princess Diana Channel 4 says the tapes

are an important historical source and, though made in private,

the subjects covered So whatever the rights and wrongs

of this case, do the royal family Joining me now are Graham Smith,

the chief executive of Republic. Robert Jobson is the royal editor

of the London Evening Standard. And Bonnie Greer is

a playwright and novelist. Robert, you have been covering the

Royal family for 30 years or so, is this an invasion of privacy?

LAUGHTER Is it an invasion of privacy?

Possibly. Possibly. Would you like to see these tapes? I have seen

them. I have seen the show. If you wanted to watch the tapes, if you

have a phone or a home computer you can do it now. If you lived in

America you would have already seen most of this. The actual programme

which Channel 4 allowed me to see because I was commentating on it for

the national newspapers is good, it is very well made and Diana is the

person that brings light to the rather sombre mood of the film. But

the principal... Once they were sold by Peter settle into NBC, they have

been licensed by Channel 4. It is as technical as that. It goes back to

the Paul Burrell court case. Paul Burrell gathered all this stuff, put

it into a loft, that led to a case that collapsed. It was left to

Scotland Yard to return these tapes to their rightful owners. It went to

Peter Setland, was it morally right? Is it right that those tapes are

being shown on national television? Yes, if you don't like... You are a

journalist, you would say that. If you don't like it, they have been

seen on television at MBC, it is in the computer, turn over, they will

not have that many viewers anyway. You don't have to watch it. You

asked whether it is moral for Channel 4 to screen it, I think it

is in the public interest, I think it is intrusive. Those poor young

men... Who have just made their own film. Let's let Christina speak.

Dated, and we all know that Diana was a very troubled woman -- they

did. We know she had an eating disorder and she was so insecure she

had all kinds of crushes on members of staff, basically, because she was

so lonely and very unhappy. We know that. Facing the 20th anniversary of

her death we could have a bit more respect for somebody who probably

died, essentially, because of prurient press interest into her

private life. And a drunk driver. Yes, but... There is no question her

life was made an absolute misery by the paparazzi pursuing her. We could

do more honour to her memory. Bonnie? In law there is something

called expectation of privacy, which applies in this situation. She was

with a therapist and it is like this all, if we go to our doctor or

therapist we expect privacy. This was the situation. So she spoke in

that atmosphere. That is what is immoral, if we are going to use that

word. It goes back to the original seller of the tape. If we look at

it, we have participated in it. We have the right to do it but we are

participating in the invasion of privacy. She did not, unfortunately,

live very long. We do not know what her impact on history will be, if

any, but it is a private tape and it is not right. It was the boy 's cut

-- voice coach and she spoke to. Crostini are touched on William and

Harry, they are normal people with normal feelings, I have spoken to

them. I would not want my dead mother's tapes to be released, would

you? Historians and journalists have described the Royal household is

more secretive than the CIA and MI5. The idea of giving them more secrecy

is back to front. It is not a private family, it was not the

journalists, it was the monarchy, institution and the Royal household

who caused the trauma for Princess Diana. There is a public interest in

judging this institution, which is largely shielded behind a fairly

sympathetic press and official secrecy to look about the closed

doors and safe who are these people? Who is the Queen who is running this

institution? Who are the people around them? Why do we

have the right to private details? It is a public institution, the

Queen as head of state, the Royal household are on the public payroll.

All the public... Gory details? I do not think we should have the

monarchy at all, there is no separation between private and

public. The family has been constitutional eyes than they

exploit their own private life for their own game. I don't have an

argument about that birds Victoria's youngest daughter burned all of her

diaries. These are public people but I would dispute whether Diana will

wind up in the historical record or not, she did not live long enough,

we do not know. This might be of interest to know about the future

king and the future king after that, then maybe. It is just not history.

It is a young woman... St Kitts will not learn about Princess Diana in

100 years? -- so kids Will not learn? I don't think that Princess

Diana's opinion of their husband and son, who will both be the monarch...

We might want to judge King Charles, the next king, who is this man?!

Let's listen to Graham. We have a right to know who our head of state

will be, we should really have a right to choose. Then what? And then

get rid of them. Robert? You were talking about President Trump, an

elected man. Your country has annihilated this man. You don't want

him to be President, you look into everything about his life. Can you

criticise us for wanting to know the saying? I did not say criticise, I

am talking about her intent. She was advised... Listen to Bonnie, Robert.

She was in a therapeutic situation. She was not. Listen to Bonnie. All I

have read... She was not. Robert, you had to listen to her. You might

have more information, but most people would believe to be true...

Alexia this information. Number one, he is not a therapist, he is an

actor. She was advised not to give him those tapes, number two, and she

did. Her bodyguard said give it back to her, he did. It was after the

Burrell case that Scotland Yard decreed that the tapes belonged to

Setland, who sold them, he is immoral, no one else. Christina?

Diana was a human being. We are talking about at moral issue. She

was a human being with the right to a certain amount of privacy. What a

very unhappy woman said to a voice coach in private about her six life

is not necessary for us to know about and I think it is an absolute

abomination and disgrace. That is all we have time for, thank you. She

said a lot more than that... The L'Arche community began

in France more than 50 years ago. It enables people with learning

difficulties to live and work with others in an environment

that is supportive and inclusive. There are now 146 L'Arche

communities in 35 countries, and Marine Baig has been to visit

one in Kent. I am in Canterbury, Kent, and I have

got here just in time for breakfast. I will be joining Elenor, Chris,

Scott and Vitak. I am helping with toast. This is supported

accommodation run by the faith -based charity L'Arche. Most of the

charity's residents have learning disabilities, although not all.

Scott is completing a degree at Bristol University when he developed

a rare and limiting brain condition. # All the lonely people

# Where do they all belong? Wow! You did a history degree? What

university? Bristol. How old were you? 1987. It left him needing 24

hour support from the charity's staff and volunteers.

# You can dance... Not all the residents require full-time care,

some are semi-independent. Caroline lives in her own self-contained

flat. How do you find living here independently compared to...? Very,

very different speakers here is just me and one other assistant, over

that there are seven, seven people and three or four macro live in. Do

you find it better? Much better. I have my own kitchen, my sitting

room, dining area, I can come and go when I want, come back when I want.

Everyday, residents are involved in work or activities, as I am about to

discover in the workshop. Hello, I am Marine. Lovely to meet

you. They sell much of the Kraftwerk and

receive a share of the profits. I am doing needle felting. I have

ever done that before. Will you teach me? -- I have never done that

before. I have a needle, I am pricking it and making sure it stays

in. You get one of these, choose the colours that you want. OK. I love

being creative, making things. It is really not as easy as it looks. I am

getting better at this. I did tell you, didn't I? You were right!

L'Arche was found in France in 1964. This particular community was

founded ten years later and was the first in the UK. One of its earliest

residents was Peter. Pictured here on the right in 1975.

He was supported by a volunteer called Maggie, pictured in the

middle. They became firm friends. That is you, Pete, looking at the

cameraman. It is where L'Arche started, I was visiting for the

first time. More than 40 years later, Maggie and Pete are still

close friends. Pete, we have been friends since 1975, because that

supper evening in the garden was when I first visited. You have been

a really good friend to me. I would say that one of the reasons I like

having you as a friend all this time is because you let me be myself. You

do. I have come to meet them both to find out what it is about L'Arche

that made their friendship so special. Nice to meet you. Thank

you. Can you believe you have been friends for so long? We always hit

it off. Pete has a great wit. What do you like about Maggie? You make

me a cup of tea. You make me a cup of tea! How has L'Arche helped you?

It struck me that it was fun. There was not understand them, we were

human beings in the same community learning from other.

Now Pete and I are meeting up with Caroline, Elenor, Chris and Scott

and other members for a barbecue. While the food is cooking, I catch

up with Louise Carter, a national coordinator at L'Arche. We are ten

communities in the UK and probably support around 300 people with

learning disabilities in different ways. We are Christian ecumenical

communities but we welcome people of all faiths and none, and it is

people with disabilities that drive and shape community life in their

desires and hopes for how they want to live.

Now time for food. Potato salad? Caroline is on salad and I am on

sweetcorn. I have been privileged to make some wonderful new friends here

and now there is nothing more to do than seeing the afternoon away.

# We're all going on a summer holiday

# No more wary for a week or two # Fern and laughter on a summer

holiday # No more worries for me and you

# For a week or two... That's nearly all

from us for this week. But Emma will be carrying

on the conversation online. Yes, I'll be talking

to Robert Jobson about his nearly three decades of work covering

the royal family. Log on to

facebook.com/bbcsundaymorninglive In the meantime, from everyone

here in the studio and the whole