Episode 9 Sunday Morning Live

On today's programme: North Korea continues its missile face off

Would military action against it be justified?

He has said things that are horrific and with me he's not getting away

with it. Justin Gatlin was back

on the track last night, a week after he was booed

by the London crowds. We ask - should there be more

forgiveness in sport? And Dame Esther Rantzen recalls

a lifetime of campaigning, That's Life, and the day she got

on the wrong side of the law. I try and bury that moment, I never

speak of it. I have just been arrested for handing out bat stew!

All that coming up later, and Emma Barnett is here ready

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, please don't forget to include your

name so I can get you involved in our discussions.

Including whether the NHS should stop giving IVF to older women.

-- should stop giving IVF fertility treatment completely.

First, North Korea and the USA have spent this week trading threats.

The regime of Kim Jong-un have forecast that this week

they will fire missiles 2,000 miles into the sea near the American

President Donald Trump has warned the North Koreans of fire and fury

North Korea is best not make any more threats to the United States.

They will be met with fire and fury, like the world has never seen.

There's concern that the war of words could spark

a real conflict with potentially devastating

Washington is worried about the growing threat posed

by a country which has long-range rockets and nuclear weapons.

So, would military action against North Korea be justified?

Joining us now are Charlie Wolf, an American commentator,

Catherine Philp, diplomatic correspondent at The Times,

Peter Felstead, the editor of Jane's Defence Weekly,

and Bruce Kent from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Charlie, wouldn't we all be feeling a lot safer this

had avoided getting embroiled in this war of words?

This started way before Donald Trump, when they have the drive to

the inauguration, president Obama said he is going to be your biggest

problem. It has been going on for four or five presidencies. No one

wants to see hostilities but the threat is Kim Jong-un and the best

way to prevent the threat is to use force or this threat of force. The

credible threat of power or force is the best deterrent. Don't you think

Kim Jong-un is sitting in his palace laughing because Donald Trump has

taken the bait? No, this has been going on too long and you have to

stand up to these people. Bruce, what do you make of that? I think it

is off the wall. Donald Trump should be negotiating in good faith to get

rid of nuclear weapons, he's done nothing of the sort. Why should he

have them and not North Korea? But when you are dealing with a leader

like Kim Jong-un, isn't military threat the only way you can stop him

getting out of control? But then you have to implement your threat, which

means devastation of the large part of the world. UN sanctions haven't

worked before. 122 countries have signed up against nuclear weapons,

why can't Trump join that? Peter, where are we with this? Bruce made

the perfect point that many other countries, the west, USA, Russia,

got huge amounts of nuclear weapons, why shouldn't North Korea? That's an

interesting argument. I think we would have to look to a world where

nuclear weapons are not part of the equation. We can look forward to

technologies like ballistic missile defence as a counter to nuclear

weapons but I think what's most dangerous about this particular

situation is its proclivity to escalate very fast and I think

that's where the danger is. A war of words is good for any of us but

surely that is holding North Korea back from doing something that would

be very dangerous. The problem with North Korea is we simply don't know

what they are thinking. We can look at the Trump Administration and seek

sensible people in the room to know what it's like to put men in battle.

With North Korea we know absolutely nothing about what they are thinking

and that's a key danger. Catherine, North Korea said it would fire

missiles into the sea near Guam, what happens if they hit Guam?

Surely we are very close to something very dangerous and that's

because of North Korea. First of all we have to see whether they actually

do it or not. President Trump threatened action against a threat.

North Korea have made that threat and he hasn't followed through on

his threat, this is the problem. When you throw around threats, you

may feel compelled to follow through on them and that's where we get into

dangerous territory. Don't throw around threats if you are not

prepared to follow through on them, it's a basic rule of diplomacy and

military strategy. This is why we see his generals taking a different

line. I know of not one military man who thinks force will solve anything

in this conflict. So my response to the question we opened with, is

military force justified, I don't even get to justify it, I get to

this is a terrible idea for which there is no strategic objectives.

Nothing you can make happen by the use of military force that we would

want to happen. But if a missile lands on Guam, surely you have to do

something? You cannot speak to them because diplomacy doesn't work at

that stage. We haven't seriously tried diplomacy recently with North

Korea. There was a process under the Clinton Administration when their

word direct talks and they haven't happened since so I'm not sure you

have a choice. If North Korea have the ability to strike the US

mainland with a nuclear weapon, I don't see the choice. They don't

have it yet and we don't want them to have it. I think that ship has

sailed. With me now is someone who has

first hand experience Jihyun Park fled the country

after her brother was beaten After a terrible ordeal at the hand

of people traffickers, she finally arrived in this

country in 2008. What do people in North Korea know

of the world beyond it? I have read every column inch written about

this, I follow diplomacy laws and often I cannot sleep at night. I am

frightened about what should happen to the families who live in North

Korea. President Trump has accused the Chinese bank of laundering money

and ... I worry about these strong assumptions but we usually... I

understand nowadays what accuracy is, it is information to North Korea

dictators because members of the Kim family have always controlled the

North Korean people and don't like North Korean people changing their

mind. But this information changes the North Korean people and one day

we stand up and... Let me ask you, do people in North Korea know that

the country has nuclear weapons? What are they taught or told about

them? The North Korean people not too much know about what happens

nowadays outside the country and insight North Korea because there is

only one TV and newspaper, and not describing other countries. So

people heard about the Government, but nowadays many North Korean

people complain about that. We cannot divide the USA army. Jihyun

Park, thank you for giving us inside. So not much known on the

ground about what is going on. These are real people, Charlie, who

will be caught up in a war of words between two big egos. It is the

commander-in-chief of the United States, not two big egos. But they

are real people. Yes, and this is a prison, an open-air prison, North

Korea. Besides that, we have a right and duty to protect our citizens. Is

-- Trump is giving a consequence. We want to make peace with everybody.

But as Catherine says, it is difficult once you go down the path

to follow up with the threat. I just want to talk to Peter about actually

how close are they to firing a nuclear weapon at Guam or anywhere

else in the world. How close are North Korea to doing that? They have

demonstrated capacity to conduct nuclear tests. They have

demonstrated their capacity to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles.

To what extent they can weaponised those missiles we are not entirely

sure but the US defence and intelligence community has recently

said they believe they do have that capacity. What are the options if

they do? Troops on the ground? Are targeted attack by the USA?

Militarily the USA said they do have the capacity to defend against a

limited missile strike and that's probably what we are talking about

here because I don't think they will have that many missiles that are

long range and weaponised but the danger is escalation from that

point. Let's find out what people are saying at home. Chris says we

should be standing by America when it comes to North Korea and be

prepared to destroy the regime and establish a working government for

them. Elaine says I think Kim Jong-un is dangerous but has become

more dangerous with Mr Trump in the White House continually baiting him.

He's a rare outtake TV star who forgets he's dealing with real life.

Robert says they are like pathetic schoolyard bullies. Paul chimed in

and says why are they doing this when Nato exists for this reason. We

shouldn't go in just because Trump and the US do. We all know Trump is

talking big to help his abysmal poll numbers. I don't need to die in a

war to help an ego driven man get over his multiple inadequacies, says

Chris. In the past we have had an awful lot of words between North

Korea and America and the rest of the world, but what's new here? The

rhetoric isn't new, is it? It is from the American side. The North

Korean rhetoric has sounded like this for years. We are used to that.

It is profoundly destabilising when the commander-in-chief of the United

States departs from the script quite so dramatically. Also, as we just

heard, the intelligence assessments are new. North Korea is far further

down the road than we believed it would be. We thought this moment

wouldn't come for two or three years minimum so their capability is much

more advanced. Because we have allowed it to get

that way. We do not know what Kim Jong-un will do but to the same

extent, we do not know what Donald Trump will do. In this instance, it

is good. The Chinese are the ones who will say, the guy could do it,

and it will be the incentive for them to say, it is time to talk to

North Korea, you have to stop this. Is there a place for military

action? Certainly not. Never? In some situations, maybe, but in this,

certainly not. They are both risking national suicide, not protecting

anything. Nuclear weapons now are five times as big as the ones that

destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we have thousands of them. Will

China keep out of it? Will Russia? We are on the edge of catastrophe

and to talk about protecting a country is ridiculous. We should

have other ways of resolving the conflict. You have had the final

say, thank you very much. Dame Esther Rantzen has

always been a fighter. She founded the charity Childline

to help vulnerable children and Silver Line to combat loneliness

in older people. But it is as a television presenter

that Esther made her name, most notably with a hugely

successful TV programme which ran for more than 20 years and mixed

hard-hitting journalism, moving personal stories and quirky

humour - That's Life - which she recalled when Sean went

to meet her. APPLAUSE

Esther Rantzen, let us talk about That's Life, a huge success, getting

figures of up to 22 million. It looked like a lot of fun to make.

Was it? Yes, it was. That was our slogan, actually, on the Tuesday

morning, when we were reading a fresh batch of letters that came in

from viewers, the material came from the audience for That's Life. We

must thank everyone who has sent us the pictures. In Middlesbrough,

window magic... And Virginia Stevens in Enfield, sticks almost

everything. What we would say is, wouldn't it be fun if...? And it was

fun. But also very serious. We had very heart-rending stories at the

centre of the programme. I would like to thank him for saving my

life. If it had not been for this man, I would not be here. With us

tonight, hello. I should tell you you are sitting next to Nicholas

Winter. APPLAUSE

You also got arrested during filming. Tell us about that. I try

and bury that moment. I never speak of it. Not your proudest moment? I

was arrested for handing out bat stew, not because they were worried

about the bat but because the policeman decided I was obstructing

the pavement. You are blocking the pavement. I don't care if you have

something for the last ten years, if you do not move, will arrest you.

You are rested. I have just been arrested for handing out bat stew.

Can you tell our director I was not obstructing. It was the bat! It was

very entertaining, of course, but it also was ground-breaking and I am

thinking of Childline, you did pretty serious stuff you have

touched on, talk to us about that, 30 years ago now. Absolutely. The

launch of Childline is a night I will never ever forget. Hello,

Childline, can I help you? 50,000 attempted calls when we opened the

lines because we were giving an opportunity to children and indeed

some adults too to talk about things they had never dared talk about

before. And we were able to assure them that it was not therefore is --

it was not their fault, the abuse should not be happening to them. It

changed my life, obviously, but much more important than that, it changed

the lives of more than 4 million children. Let us get onto Silver

Line, there are similarities and big differences. With Silver Line,

people left alone and lonely and ignored. What is the aim and what

would you like to happen with Silver Line? What we want to do is make

children understand that we care about them, but with that Silver

Line, we want older people to understand we care about them. And

when we piloted that Silver Line, one of our callers in the very early

days said, when I put the phone down after I had called Silver Line, I

feel like I have joined the human race. That makes me quite angry

because our older people should always feel like they are valued

members of the human race. In 2000, you lost your husband, Desmond

Wilcox. Can you remember much of that time and how painful it was? I

think anybody who has been through this sort of loss, we never really

get over it. We never forget it. But we learn to cope with it, I think.

If we are lucky, and I have got family and friends and work and all

kinds of things which I rely upon, really, but nothing fills the gap.

Is that the spark to get you to do that Silver Line? I found myself

coming home to the flat and it was dark and empty and cold and there

was no one to have a cup of tea with and talk about the day with and I

did not like it. I am not a religious person, I am agnostic. My

daughter is religious. I was rather appalled when I found myself saying,

I think God wants you to move in with me. Fortunately, she laughed!

You are sitting in your kitchen with your daughter, you are agnostic, she

is religious, what religion is she? She is Jewish. You were brought up

in a Jewish household, has that shaped your life? Yes, I feel very

grateful because I know I was born in 1940 and if I had been born in a

different country, I would not be sitting here today. My family would

not have survived. At the difficult times in your life, has faith played

any sort of role? I am agnostic, I am also a sceptic. I am thrilled for

people for whom faith makes a difference. As I say, if I am wrong,

if you are there, I apologise, I should have realised earlier. It is

never too late! Finally, if there was a television programme about

your life, what would you will sign off be? I am going to resist that's

life, that was life, that is afterlife... That sounds morbid! You

are making this programme... What would my sign off be? I'm afraid

that is all we have time for. Thank you so much. Thank you. She is very

keen to hear from anyone who has been helped by Childline.

Contact her on [email protected].

Still to come on Sunday Morning Live...

The Archbishop of Canterbury travels to Uganda to highlight

I am quite bowled over by the genuine level to which Uganda has

accepted refugees which is the equivalent of us taking

2.5-3,000,000. It was a golden time last night at the athletics

championships with a stunning first place in the relay. But for Usain

Bolt, it was a sad occasion as he pulled short with an injury. Last

week Usain Bolt had further heartache when he was beaten by

Justin Gatlin in the 100 metres final. Despite his success, Justin

Gatlin was loudly booed because he has been banned twice over doping

allegations in the second instance, serving a four year suspension. The

medal ceremony was also low. His father described the crowd's

reaction as disrespectful to the sport. Do athletes judged to have

broken the rules deserve the cold shoulder?

Should there be more forgiveness in sport?

Joining us now are Mihir Bose, journalist and former

Martha Kelner, chief sports reporter at the Guardian,

Habir Singh, anti-doping team leader at London 2012.

If an athlete who's done wrong, has served their punishment,

I think it depends on the circumstances, but with Justin

Gatlin, he has been found guilty of two doping offences now, the second

was very serious, so I can understand the crowd taking out

their frustration in the form of booing him. The only issue was the

double standards from the crowd in that there are many people who have

committed anti-doping offences competing at the London 2017 Games,

so I think Justin Gatlin was taking the flat for the rest of the people

who have committed offences. In life, if you do something wrong,

very wrong, you go to prison, serve your time, there are no sanctions,

people do not who you on the street. It is life, isn't it? I think that

is true but sport has to be divorced from life. It is a job, isn't it? It

is. But if you commit fraud in a financial job, it is unlikely your

employer will invite you back, the same if you are a lawyer and you are

correct, you will be disbarred. You are not banned? You are, on

occasion. If you are Doctor, you do wrong, you are struck off the

register. Sport is a privilege, not a God-given right. If you are

abusing that privilege... OK, the crowd did not seem very forgiving.

Usain Bolt seem to accept it. He applauded Justin Gatlin, shouldn't

the crowd have been doing the same? I think they should have. I think it

was wrong for the crowd to boo him. I agree sport is special but we

should not forgive because forgiveness is part of life -- but

we should forgive. Sport is magical. The two incident you showed were

surprising, unexpected results, sport is the only place you can get

unexpected results. Everything in life is predictable and the magic of

sport means that people who follow it think that everybody is pure and

wonderful and what they do is because they have worked for it.

That is not right. If we do not forgive, we are missing out the

redemptive part of sport. Surely sport is about people coming back

and winning when you did not think they could. You test athletes, is it

time to stop forgiving and bring in much harsher punishments? I think

there is this narrative about athletes and particularly the Justin

Gatlin case, but I think the intricacies are not always

understood. The first case, the United States anti-doping agency

said there was no intent to cheat and he did not cheat but the

international association for athletics Federation said that

because he tested positive, he has to be banned. We do not get that

part of the story. The second time he tested positive, he had 34 tests

during that event prior to the positive test and he was negative.

We do not hear that. We just hear, he tested positive twice, he beat

our hero, Usain Bolt, so the public opinion is he is the bad guy. The

narrative is we think, they have done something wrong. You are on the

coal face and you are saying, half the time, they do not mean to break

the rules. We have to look at it from the wider perspective which is

they are human beings, their livelihood, and the bigger issues,

why are athletes doping but I'm not forgiving athletes is not addressing

it. I think it is very rarely you get an athlete who holds up their

hands and says, yes, I cheated intentionally. When was the last

time there was an Olympic champion who had not failed a drugs test who

said, actually, I have deceived you, I have been doping? It does not

happen. Not in human nature. Emma, you've got

a guest on this one. With me now is the former javelin

athlete Goldie Sayers, who finished fourth

at the Beijing Olympics in 2008. She's waiting to hear if she will be

upgraded to bronze after one of the Russian athletes in that

competition was found to have taken The athlete is appealing

the decision. So, whilst the legal

challenge is under way, we don't want to get

into the details of that case but when you were competing,

what impact did the issue of athletes taking banned

substances have on you? As an athlete at the time, you have

to remain naive, otherwise it probably sends you a bit mad. You

have no physical evidence someone is cheating, but having found out an

athlete who finished ahead of me in the Olympic Games perhaps has been

doping, it is... It does tarnish your career somewhat. The biggest

thing it robs you of is knowing how good you were at the time and all

the self-confidence and also financial reward that comes with

that. You are pushing yourself harder while this is going on, you

can risk greater injury because you are competing maybe against

standards that are not natural? Exactly. When you have just missed

out on a medal, you are making up a gap in performance and it is an

imaginary gap so you end up pushing yourself, getting injured, that is

what happened to me the year after, 2009, and has happen to a lot of

other clean athletes. You end up getting injured and that has a big

impact on your performance. It is not just missing out on the medal,

it is also what impact that has on the rest of your career physically

but also mentally. Do you think there should be tougher

penalties for the athletes and also for the people around them? I think

that's something we are not talking about a lot, it is who is pushing

performance and enhancing drugs onto the athletes. I think harsher

penalties have to be put in place for the coaches around the athletes

who make them think it is OK to cheat. We are doing a lot more in

sport to highlight the doping issue and getting to grips with testing

more athletes and punishing them appropriately. I do think it is a

grey area in that some athletes who test positively have inadvertently

taken a banned substance but I think now we have got this second strike

and URL policy, and I think that is right.

I'll be in danger of letting athletes like Goldie down because we

are not punishing people who test positive for banned substances

enough? I don't think anyone is it against introducing sanctions,

whether it is monetary or legal, to athletes. We are isolating sport and

forgetting about the humanistic aspect. We are humans and can make

mistakes and we would want a fair trial and to demonstrate intent

before we label somebody. When we say athletes rarely admit to

cheating or doping offences, I agree with that, but like anyone else we

would want to be innocent until proven guilty entities that grey

area. Can I turn away from drugs and talk more about sport generally.

Mihir, all sportsmen and women are trying to get the edge, should we be

stricter in that area? There is a difference between gamesmanship and

cheating. In cricket ball tries to hide the ball from the batsmen in

order to deceive him over whether the ball will swing. Is it cheating

or clever play? You won't see the ball until the last minute so you

won't know. That is good play, if you like, clever play. Like diving

in football? If they used television replay they could work out the

diving but they have gone in for retrospective punishment which means

you punish the player and penalise the team that has suffered at the

hands of the player. This is where I think sport has got into a model.

You should punish the player straightaway so that the team, the

player is part of the team, and we have this in the World Cup. The team

is punished straightaway, not later on. What you want to see in sport is

immediate results and spectators want to see it is fair. It's the

first time I've seen you in agreement. You're nodding, Martha? I

do agree with football and the punishment taking place immediately,

but that level of offence this very different from something that alters

the trajectory of someone else's career. You see it more in athletics

than any other sport but when you are taking away someone's

opportunities in the future you are also having a financial effect on

their lives. You steal not only that moment on the podium but also the

commercial opportunities they have. I don't think diving in football is

comparable to doping or... But Martha, we also have a whole team

behind the athletes and we don't do enough to look at what this team is.

Advisers, managers, what are they doing? Let's find out what social

media is saying. Peter says once is an error of

judgment if your doping, twice is criminal intent. Francis says sport

should always be about fair play and respect to your opponent, drug users

show neither quality and should be dismissed from their sport for life.

Emily says I explained to my eight-year-old son why everyone was

booing Justin Gatlin and he said if I cheat at my games are not allowed

to play, why should he be allowed? Out of the mouths of babes. Someone

else says I would like to see two versions of the games, one clean and

one with performance enhancing drugs.

We will have to discuss that another time because we are out of time.

Thank you very much indeed. The Archbishop of Canterbury has

just returned from a trip to Africa Justin Welby joined forces

with the Archbishop of Uganda, Stanley Ntagali, to highlight

the plight of thousands of refugees who have fled the civil war

in neighbouring South Sudan. Martin Bashir, the BBC's religious

affairs correspondent, joined the two archbishops

on their humanitarian journey. Cruising above the lush plains of

east Africa, the archbishops of Canterbury and Uganda are on a

mission to refugees who fled tribal conflict in South Sudan. Despite

desperate circumstances, they offer the warmest of welcomes. More than

900,000 people have rushed across the border into northern Uganda over

the last five years. As the two main tribes have taken sides with either

the current or previous presidents. I am really quite bowled over by the

genuine level to which Uganda has accepted a volume of refugees which

proportionate to their population is the equivalent of us taking 2.5

million. This town houses 18,000 refugees. Can I come in? Thank you.

Is it watertight when it rains? It is full of holes and sometimes they

leak. So you get food from the United Nations? Yes. They only get

that food and if it is not there, it is not there. This is a couple who

from one moment to the next grab what you can and Rome and didn't

tell us the horrendous things they saw. But others did.

The United Nations is providing the bulk of support for food and

shelter, but the Ugandan church is also involved. We pray for the

refugees and for southern Sudan to resolve the conflict. We buy food,

we give the children and the mothers because the majority of refugees are

children and mothers. And educating these children is one of the camp's

biggest challenges. How many children? 784. In one of the brief

talks you gave, you said God especially loves refugees. Jesus was

himself a refugee so he understands what it is like to have run from

your house, suddenly, and find yourself in a strange land.

One of the most striking things about the culture here is that in

all our inadequacy of relationships, relating to the people who are

suffering, there is this response which you will have heard to hope

and faith in Jesus Christ because that is their experience. The UN

continues to encourage the warring factions to negotiate peace but as

yet there is little sign of an agreement.

You have worked in Africa in the secular business of the oil

industry, you have travelled extensively, you have taught, you

now come as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Do you feel optimistic

about the future of this continent or is there a sense of pessimism?

When I look at Africa, I am full of hope. Let's not be hypocritical as

Europeans. Within our lifetime, and many people still around, we killed

20 million of each other, and look where Europe is now. We are not in a

position to lecture other people on civilisation. We are in a position

humbling, and with love and respect to help Africa in its great movement

forward. The Archbishop prepares to leave Uganda, inspired by its

response in welcoming almost 1 million people. This is in a poor

country, led by the president who says we don't use the word refugee,

these are fellow human beings, fellow Africans.

The Archbishop of Canterbury with refugees in Uganda.

Figures out this week reveal that access to IVF fertility treatment

The research by Fertility Network UK says that some health authorities

have stopped offering the three cycles of treatment,

And three NHS providers are considering restricting IVF

The technique fertilises eggs outside the womb and then

So, in a time when the NHS is struggling for cash,

Joining the panel now are Serena Bergman,

a feminist journalist, Geeta Nargund, a fertility

expert, Richard Clothier, who is a former fertility patient,

and Caroline Farrow, a Catholic commentator.

Geeta, in a time of cutbacks and shortages the NHS

is struggling to meet all the demands placed on it.

Is IVF a luxury we can no longer afford?

IVF is not a luxury. Infertility is a disease, and it needs treatment

like any other medical condition. Secondly, as regards the funding,

it's not a problem. There is enough money in the NHS at the moment

within the existing budget to fund IVF. It is how it is being spent.

The question is the problem is how it's being spent and how it's being

managed. Right now IVF is not considered as a national Health

Service, as we all know it is a postcode lottery with regional

variations. One authority paying 2500, another one a different amount

and it is unacceptable. It is creating inequality in our society.

The NHS does many things. One of the things it does save lives, one of

the things it does is IVF. Many people would say the IVF is

struggling for cash, if something is to go what comes first, saving lives

or IVF? Creating life is equally important. There is a bigger picture

here, fertility is not just for family benefit from it is for

societal and long-term benefit. We need children for the long-term

economy so we cannot be narrow-minded, we cannot be

short-sighted. IVF is a solution, a technological solution to a disease

and we cannot cut back. What do you make of that, Serena? It is

everyone's right to have a baby? That is maybe. These are doctors and

nurses, members of the community, they understand the struggle, but at

the end of the day we need to remember that the NHS is struggling

for cash in areas that really affect people's health and while I

understand that IVF is so important to some people, the reality is, with

all due respect, we don't need more children. It affects people's health

when they cannot have children. We will ask Richard in a minute. I

accept that, and we need more support for people with mental

health issues whether it is because they cannot have children or for

other reasons. We also need to reframe the idea that having a child

biologically is something everyone should do in order to lead a happy

life. Richard, what do you make of that? The mental health side alone

will have a cost. If you move IVF treatment altogether the cost of

dealing with the mental health demographic you will single-handedly

create so that will have a financial cost in itself. The other thing you

will do if you remove IVF treatment is send people abroad where

treatment is far cheaper. But is it the right of everybody to have a

baby and the role of the NHS to pay for it? I think the NHS has a

responsibility for it because everybody has held events of some

sort, but everybody's are different. Mine was infertility and the NHS

wasn't there for me. I don't have any problem with the money I have

put in the system to cater for other people's health events regardless of

whether it is naturally caused or from a clear lifestyle decision they

have made. Caroline, is IVF isn't on the NHS for free, surely just rich

people would be able to do it? The role of the NHS is not to get

involved in social engineering, to make things fairer for which or poor

people. But I do have some sympathy with Richard and Geeta's point of

the mental health impacts of infertility. I am a mother of five

children and I know it is easy for me to pontificate about why IVF

should not be available on the NHS, but when we look at what IVF does,

it does not solve the underlying issue of infertility, it offers, for

some people, the hope of a sticking plaster. The other day,

interestingly, the Government's Public health authority has put out

a survey for women's fertility, it asked women of all ages to

contribute about different fertility and reproductive experiences, really

valuable survey, worth filling in, and it does not mention something

called natural fertility awareness, a woman monitoring her cycle, not

just noting when her period is, how long the cycle is, but the various

biological markers. There are quite a few people who have managed to

conceive successfully... There will be people who can't. The NHS is not

at the moment helping with that at all, women's fertility, the NHS

treats women's fertility as if it is a problem that has to be stopped

because people do not want to get pregnant. Then suddenly you decide

you want to have children and you are faced with this at the last

minute, goodness, I would like to have children, I am not conceiving,

perhaps... With that attitude, if people who smoke have lung cancer,

you are on your own, your decision. Absolutely not. When you have

smoked, this is not about deserving and undeserving, this is why we must

not take this attitude... When you have smoked, you have contracted a

life-threatening disease and unique treatment. Presumably, you have put

in a lot of money through taxation on cigarettes towards the NHS. It is

not to do with who has contributed and who has not, but what is the

best use of funds? Is creating life the best use of funds? I think

actually no. Emma has a guest who might be interested. Someone in a

very different position. Joining me now with Jessica who had a loving

rounds of IVF which unfortunately has not been successful -- 11

rounds. You are in your mid 30s, you found you were struggling to have

children, EU funded privately, why was it so important for you? -- EU

funded it privately. Having a baby is something we all think is a

given, we know that we might not have everything in life, but we

assume we are going to be able to have a family. When that is denied

to you, it is exceptionally hard and it affects everything, your

self-esteem, your relationship with your family and friends, your

partner, how you feel about work. That is certainly why I went to such

extremes and we were diagnosed with unexplained infertility. As many

people are. Absolutely. I seemed to be able to get pregnant and I had

multiple miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy that almost took my life.

I now dedicate my time to campaigning. We are only having this

debate partly because people do not understand the impact that not being

able to have a child has on your life. How does it make you feel when

you hear someone able to have five children safe, IVF should not be

offered on the NHS, it is not something important for the NHS to

be offering, especially considering what the NHS is there to do?

Obviously, that is really hard to hear. But at the same time, I think

she said many valuable things about improving fertility education. One

of the reasons we have had this exponential growth in infertility is

that women are leaving it later and something that I feel really

passionate about is that we are taught in school how not to get

pregnant and actually getting pregnant is quite hard, especially

if you leave it later. We have not created the conditions to enable

people to have families that the biological optimum age. I think

before we eradicate IVF on the NHS, perhaps we need to do more about

that. And this is a growing issue. We will pick up some of these

points. Jessica, thank you. Not easy.

It affects relationships, work, friends, everything. It affected

that lady in every aspect of life. What is wrong with giving women the

chance to try? The problem is, as the lady mentioned, we perceive

infertility as being denied a family. This is not the case. When

you provide IVF on the NHS and you are not giving support to people who

want to go down other routes such as adoption or fostering or the

emotional support they need to reframe the idea of a happy life and

a family life, you end up in horrendous situations where people

are paying for 11 rounds of IVF. It shows the desperation. It may not be

something you feel, but it is a feeling many couples feel.

Absolutely. I think those feelings are very valid but I do not think

the NHS should be funding the solutions and I do not think the

solution is IVF. How do you feel about that? I think you cannot

overstate the mental health impact of infertility and I think if there

is such a delta between what some parts of the country are paying,

2000 up to 11.5 thousand, there is so much that can be done with that

pot of money. What is the value of... It does not work for everyone,

but what is the harm, the financial return, of spending a little bit of

money of taking someone from having serious mental health issues to

being happy? Let us give people at home they say. Duncan says, 25 weeks

pregnant having had IVF on the NHS, hard enough process to go through

without having the financial pressure on top, congratulations!

And says the NHS should be treating the sick, being unable to conceive

is life-threatening, why should we pay? Rebecca says, infertility is a

medical condition like any other and if receiving IVF is a cure, the NHS

has a moral duty to help. It should be available for anybody who wants

it. The final word to Geeta, what do you

want the NHS to do? Place a cap on the price of IVF, to have a national

price. One price everywhere, national problem, needs a national

solution, so we can fund more cycles. Three rounds? Three rounds,

there is money in the budget, it is how it is being spent. We should do

it as a priority rather than talking about cutbacks. Fidelity is a man's

problem as well, 50% of IVF is done for male infertility. We cannot

create a society where there is inequality and we need to help

people and infertility is a medical condition and IVF is a technological

solution. Thank you very much, thank you to all of you.

70 years ago, the partition of India led to the movement

Muslims travelled to the new, mainly Muslim, state of Pakistan,

while many Hindus and Sikhs headed in the opposite direction.

The upheaval led to some bitter inter-religious violence.

A BBC programme to mark the anniversary of partition takes

members of families from the UK back to trace their roots and explore

the impact that the creation of the two states had

We'll talk to Sameer Butt and Binita Kane,

two of those who went on this journey of discovery, in a moment.

First, a taster of the programme, My Family, Partition

So, recognise it? That was a very beautiful house, everything has

changed. From here to there, I think. Our house. We used to live

here... Hugely emotional scenes, you and your grandfather, Sameer. He

broke down? When I think back to that moment, stood in front of the

house, there was a time when he could not believe it was his because

it had changed so much. The realisation on his face and the

emotion that followed, it was overwhelming. He became a child in

that moment, he said, where is my dad? Did he? That is what he said.

70 years disappeared and he was a child again in that moment of

realisation. A very emotional time for him and myself as well. I cannot

even imagine. Growing up, did you talk about partition? Did you

understand what it had done the millions of people? I knew the

basics of it, a split between India and Pakistan. I knew roughly that my

grandparents had gone through a tough time to get to where they are

now. This experience, it actually helped me to explore exactly what

they went through. I have experienced it in a certain way

following the footsteps my grandfather took. People around you

growing up in the UK, did you feel they knew about it, the hatred

between the religions that had happened? It is really interesting

because I have friends who are Hindus and friends who are Sikhs but

we do not have the animosity that was there in the partition time.

Only 70 years ago? Exactly. Still within our lifetime. There are a lot

of people I work with, friends, they had no idea what partition was. I am

glad we now have an opportunity to explore what happened and to show

people what happened. Let me bring in Binita. Good morning. In the

programme, we see you meeting some of those who helped your father

escape, the violence as a seven-year-old. Let us look at an

extract now. I just want to thank your family and for you, you saved

my dad's life. You helped my family escape. Thank you so much. Thank

you. I have a photograph to show you. He is here. This is the little

boy you saved. Also very powerful moment, Binita. From the whole

experience, was there a particular feeling or thought that stood out?

The whole journey was an emotional roller-coaster from start to finish.

From a personal point of view, I did not know if the village even existed

anymore. In my mind, it had been burnt to the ground, everyone had

fled. To find it was there and to meet people who remembered my family

and my grandfather... In the next episode, you find out what has

happened to them. It was just overwhelming. I cannot even describe

how that felt, to thank the gentleman who saved my dad's life,

it was an incredible moment. Very special. Did you grow up also having

these conversations or was it talked about a little bit? Like Sameer, I

knew in very factual terms that partition happened, two new states

were created, and I knew the basics of what had happened, but I had

absolutely no idea what a cataclysmic event it was, millions

of people died, so many were made refugees, and the actual human

impact of dividing people on those grounds, that really did not

register. I am embarrassed to say I did not know more about it. I do not

think you are alone, even though it affected your family. At any time,

has it been difficult now learning more about it to learn what the

British role was and obviously living in the UK? To be honest, a

lot of people that we met at that time did speak about the role the

British had, they had their role to play, but for myself, I think

whether it should have happened or shouldn't have happened, I do not

want to comment, but it did not happen in the right way. They could

have been what organisation, guidelines to follow. There could

have been a system in place to ensure millions of people did not

lose their lives. Politicians incited hatred at the time, there

was a feeling of that. Final word to you, Binita. When you look back at

history, there will always be dark periods, we must not shy away from

it, we must learn from it and look at what happened and so much of it

is relevant to the modern world and we feel quite passionately, and I

know Anita Rani does too, that we must raise awareness of it. I am

sure the programme will do that. And you can see the second part

of Partition, My Family and Me - India, 1947 on BBC One at 9pm this

Wednesday. That's nearly all

from us for this week. Many thanks to all our

guests and you at home But Emma will be carrying

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

to Sameer and Binita. Log on to

facebook.com/bbcsundaymorninglive In the meantime, from everyone

here in the studio and the whole Sunday Morning Live team,

goodbye.