Episode 5 The Big Questions

Good morning. Thank you very much, indeed. Welcome to The Big

Questions, live from King Edward VI School. I'm Nicky Campbell. This

week the Bishops in the House of Lords battled against the

Government's welfare reforms, and lost. They haven't given up their

fight. Is it right to cap benefits? The Bishop of Southampton says it

will hurt many vulnerable children. Tomorrow, Elizabeth II will have

been our queen for 06 years. As a young woman of 25 she became

Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Today's Britain is a more

multi-cultural society with people of many more faiths and none than

in 1952. Should a future monarch cease to be the Supreme Governor of

the Church of England? Mohammed Ansar says the next monarch should

have freedom of faith and not tide to the Anglican communion. On

Wednesday, the steady 40 year decline of selection by academic

ability in the English education system was quietly put into reverse.

Existing grammar schools are now allowed to increase their intake of

pupils provided they are in areas of rising population. Should

grammar school education be allowed to grow. The journalist,

Christopher Hitchens says Britain's future depends on them being

allowed to exstand limitless and yaefr why. And yaefr where. In an

open letter to the Observer, 18 Church of England bishops expressed

their concern this a cap on benefits could "push some of the

most vulnerable children in the country into severe poverty". Many

working people take home far less than �26,000 a year to support

their families. Is it right to cap benefits? Caroline Dinenage, the

Conservative MP, you believe that it is immoral that some families

are working their back sides off, as you put it, and taking home less

than families doing nothing? Yeah. I really do. I represent a part of

enge -- England which is not typical of the affluent south of

England. People are on low average wages. Less than half a job per

working adult and people having to commute some distance. The biggest

town in Britain without a rail work. To get to work where they are

earning less and enjoy lower standards of living than neighbours

of theirs living off benefits. That is unfair that people who are doing

the right thing should be penalised for doing so. Doing - what do you

mean by doing the right thing? What about people on benefits, are they

doing the wrong thing? Everybody aspires to want to work. Nobody

wants to remain on benefits. For everybody who wants to work and

they can't it's a tragedy for that that family. The longer you are on

benefits the less likely you will have the self-confidence to get

that job. People do want to work to support their families and feel

they are contributing to society. You are worried about the children

of the working poor? Yeah. What about the children of those on

benefits, the vulnerable children who will suffer? Bishop Jonathan

tell us about your concerns. There are common areas of agreement here

that Welfare Reform Bill has important contributions to make. We

welcome as a House of Bishop ops we welcome it's universalism and its

readiness to tackle issues. When you drill down and ask different

questions, not so much comparing you know, is it fair for people to

get �26,000 for doing nothing? Here you are working terribly hard, that

is an attractive argument, it's beside the point when 6 7,000

households will be affected by the Welfare Reform Bill. 220,000 of the

children in there are part of those households. Quite disturbingly, I

think, research has shown, four out of ten disabled children live in

poverty. The impact, which I'm not sure has been aired enough, the

impact of the proposed Welfare Reform Bill would see 100,000

disabled children lose 1,4lun a year if the Bill goes through

unamended. The benefit will not be taken away with families with

members of disability. I defy no- one not to live on a salary of what

is effectively �35,000. �500 may sound sufficient, just looking at

it cold and neat. If you are in the centre of London, or in parts of

the south-east, rent, basic bills leaves you very little out of that.

I believe that unamended the Welfare Reform Bill raises real

issues of fairness towards the poorest in our society. Where are

the children of people on welfare benefits more worthy of our care

than the children of the working... I wouldn't want to set it in that

way. That is the temptation to set it in that way. When the Prime

Minister presented the policy, I'm troubled by the image... They get

child benefit those on benefits will not. We could debate how the

government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise the arms industry and all

sorts of every things. That you roll your eyes at. They are

creating jobs. They are being moved overseas. On the Welfare Reform

Bill if the cap did what it said it would, I wouldn't have any trouble

with it. We find it applies to unemployed families but part-time

workers. If you are working 23 hours a week your benefits will

still be capped at the same amount. Tax credits and council tax benefit.

If you are offered a part-time job it wouldn't be in your interest to

take it. It's a disincentive. it concern you the people who will

suffer? I'm suspicious about when people talk about children, it's a

sign of pop gand da. That is from The Children's Society. If people

are running households, it's up to them to feed and clothe the

children to put the children first. For them to say, children will do

this, children will do that, it's child poverty. Also in the middle

there are discussions of poverty. There is no poverty in this country

by comparison with what the Bishop must well know goes on in Africa or

Asia. We do not have people who actually cannot afford to eat, have

no shelter, freeze to death. Have no access to medical care. What

puzzles me about the bishop is that he and his colleagues on the bench

seem to have mistaken the welfare state as the King doom of heaven.

They think that supporting the taxation of the poor to put money

into the hands often of people who don't, or in some cases, won't work

is in some way a Christian principle. As I recall it, St Paul

said, "he who does not work, neither shall he not eat". The

church are concerned with people who really and truly need

assistance it should not be concerned with creating a huge

welfare dependant... Of course, I'm grateful for the theological lesson.

Any time. I often feel bishops need them. Jesus said he had come to

give news to the poor. Yes. We were to love our neighbour. Yes. It's

not propaganda to speak up for the vulnerable.

APPLAUSE You are a Christian, Peter, the

Bible is full of instructions to help the poor and those less

fortunate? So we should. That is completely different from setting

up a society in which people are paid not to work. Also a society, I

have to say, in which we have deliberately created, this is

something the church should be against, the church depends upon

marriage of all things, a society which has created hundreds of

thousands of fatherless families in which the children suffer endlessly

from not having a father in the home. There are lots of hands going

up. I will come to you in a minute. Ear other people who genuinely in

this country can't be bothered working? I don't think it's about

can't be bothered working. People were born into families where there

has been generational unemployment. That is a problem of aspiration.

They are cited in low educational attainment areas because nobody

wants to work, the teachers don't want to go there, it's really hard.

I don't think - I've never met anyone, who said to me, when I was

younger I know what I'm going to be, I'm going to live on benefit. I

will not have a car, not have a holiday. I will be demonised by a

state that is has deserving and undeserving. Are you worried about

the language here, the undeserving poor and deserving poor, the

working poor? The hard-working families. I just... There are hard-

working families? There absolutely are. Universial credit will hit

680,000 households and they will lose money as well. They are low

and middle income earners. We focus on the people on benefit. The real

issue about the benefit problem, the real spend is housing benefit.

A lot has been made of very big, people living in posh places. That

is about private sector landlords charging large rents. Where will

these people go? Where will they be relocated to when the average

person losing �83 a week. That is as a result of selling off all the

council houses. Absolutely. doesn't alter the problem that the

cost of supporting this welfare state does not come out of the

pockets of bankers and millionaires it comes out of the pockets of the

next door neighbours of these people going out to work. They are

often taking home less than the people they are subsidising this

cannot conceivibly be right. lady there. Good morning. How about

personal accountability? That is laid at the hands of parents, not

children. Parents should not have children or even animals they

cannot support. You can afford - if you can't afford - Take account of

your own income and only abilities and parent children you feel you

can give a good life to. You didn't like that? I don't like. That I

feel really quite cross that actually we talk about the fact

that will is no poverty in this country. I live and work in a

deprived estate in Southampton. I see poverty every day much I see

children sleeping on beds we wouldn't let our dogs sleep on.

Mums going hungry to feed their children because they can't afford

to live on the money that they are given. Yes, they are on benefit.

Most of them can't get a job in the area that we live in. It's almost

impossible to get a job. I really take offence that someone say that

is poverty doesn't exist in this country. The slums of Bombay and

see how people live there. Perhaps, take any of these people who this

country complain they are poor and take them there and see what

poverty is. We have a moral poverty which the bishops should address of

people... Surrounded by crime and disorder and complete moral

situation in which horrible things happen that bishops do nothing

about. There was a case on BBC, lots of people have been discussing

this case this week, as to how representative it is, a family they

went through their budget. They are family who will have their benefits

cut as a result of the welfare cap. I don't know if you saw it. �220 on

shopping, 24 cans of larger, tobacco, the kids had mobile phones.

They had Sky Sports. People get hot under the collar. You could argue

that, in our society, are these essentials? No, they are probably

not essentials. They might help someone to survive when they are

living in poverty. I'm happy to accept that Africa and India have

problems. Some people who are speaking here have never seen the

problems in this country. They should live in these council

estates and see what it's like to live on benefits. I don't think

anybody is denying that we have issues of real poverty in some

parts of our country. We are talking about cruelty of trapping

families in a situation where they are worse off if they go to work.

That is the reality of the situation. Immoral in a sense.

People are put in a trap if they go out to work their families will be

worse off financially. Good morning. Just to say, I understand how hard

it is to get a paid job. I'm university student.. I understand

how hard it's hard to fit around hours and things like that in jobs.

I'm currently on seven voluntary jobs and one paid job. On top of my

university studies so I'm working pretty much 24/7 and earning

virtually nothing and there are people who are sitting at home,

putting their feet up, waeching Jeremy Kyle earning �26,000. I

I think it's 44%, I have the figure written down here somewhere, 46% of

children in poverty have lone parents, that's your situation.

is, yeah. Further down the line how are these benefit cuts going to

affect your life? And your little girl? I have finished being

homeless, I was homeless for a long time and I finally got a property

with very little help from my council, but within the next year

when I am in a small one-bedroom in Tottenham, the cheapest area in

north London at the moment, but in a year or two when I need a two-

bedroom for my daughter I won't be able to afford living in London

where I am based, where my network is. Everything is here for me. The

courses I want to do to go on to university to better myself which I

can't afford to do now because of child care costs are in London F I

move out of London I will have nothing. I would like to say that

the propaganda that you talked about, where the media and such

like talk about children, it is not propaganda. It is really not

propaganda. I didn't choose to - you know, same with the - what you

were saying about people who can't afford to have children. When I

fell pregnant I was with my partner and we were settled and happy and

had good money behind us. I didn't expect to become a single mother.

After my bills are paid I can afford to eat two or three days a

week. So you are telling me that the cap is going to help the

country, it's not. Peter Hitchens, what should she do? It's none of my

business what she should do. It's not just me. I don't know... There

are tens of thousands of families in the UK in the same position.

It's rude of me to start offering you advice on how to run your life,

it's your life. On the other hand, there is a limit to the extent to

which other people can support new your circumstances. They can keep

the wolf from your door, they can make sure you have you have shelter.

A civilised society looks after the most vulnerable people. To what

extent? I want to be one of those people in society that cares for

other people in a time when they need help. Good. I don't want to be

someone who pays towards landlords charging hundreds of thousands of

pounds for housing benefit. I do worry about what's going to happen

happen to those people. I am worried about the families that are

going to have to move out of those properties somewhere else. Where

are they going to go? What cost is it going to be to our society to

rip families away from their support systems? You make perfectly

good points, and I agreed about the housing benefit problem, I am not a

supporter of this Government, the Government is largely grandstanding

here, it loves being tacked by the bishops, it make it is look

Conservative. The destruction of fatherhood and abolition of

marriage by several successive Conservative and Labour governments

which the Tories will do nothing about. The bishops won't do

anything about either. That's the real issue. I am not here as a

defender of the Government. think the society changes have led

us here have been disastrous. Mohammed, you are of the opinion

that the consequence of this, albeit perhaps an unintended kopbs

kopbs kopbs -- kopbs kwepb shall we say, is going to be a form of ethic

cleansing, what do you mean? wrote an article on this recently.

We have to put this debate in a wider context. The Prime Minister

talked recently about saying he felt that these measures were both

right and fair. I think, firstly, on that first issue of rightness

and fair fairness you have to look at these things happening. We are

talking about 100, 200, �300 million a year, when we are

spending on Trident, tens of billions on... The saving in the

welfare budget by 2015 is going to be George Osborne hopes �18 billion.

At a time when we are spending hundreds of billions and in fact

trillions of pounds bailing out bankers there are serious questions

about hitting the poorest in society. However, the point I want

to come to is that who are the poorest in society, firstly? And

let's try and define this. Iain Duncan Smith came out on 23rd

January and he did the press junket and was clear about saying we have

impact assessments that address these need areas and we can look

clearly at who these are affecting. Actually, if you look at something

that was in October last year, the Government is absolutely clueless.

It says we are going to disproportionately hit black and

minority ethnic groups and within that subset if you divide it...

Bigger families as well. If I can say they've been clear, which is

firstly these measures are designed to hit especially the housing cap,

are designed to hit larger families, they're designed to hit families

who are living in wealthier areas. Now we know in this country that

75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities are on or below the

poverty line, that's compared to 20% f you like the white, British

community. Now, we also know that Muslim families, for example, and

ethnic minority families have a much younger age structure. The

average age within the Muslim and Asian skphaoupbt about 26,. It

doesn't take too much of a stretch to ask the question what is the

consequence?. The consequence is going to be this Government is

driving forward a programme, and I use this carefully, ethnic

cleansing of our streets in high value areas to push ethnic

minorities out and as Iain Duncan Smith says, we want to let

commuters in. I am not the spokesman for the Government, it

seems to be highly unlikely that low as my opinion is of David

Cameron, that he is embarking on a project of ethnic cleansing. It may

be an unintended consequence of the policy but it isn't what he is

trying to do. I take massive objection to this statement

designed to hit your welfare changes are designed to hit people.

They're not designed to hit anybody. What they're designed to do is - I

mean, we get caught up in... Iain Duncan Smith he said, this was two

weeks ago, he said very clearly, we want to move large family who is

are on benefits out of areas where commuters can live. Unintended

consequence? I really don't think so. Actually if a family is living

in an expensive area with very high house prices, then they would do

what any normal working family would do, move to a cheaper area

where house prices are more affordable, that's what anybody

would do. Do you agree people should only have the amount of

children they can afford? grandmother would say children

don't ask to come, the children come and you must deal with them

and they must all be loved. These changes are not designed to hit

anybody. What they're designed to do is make sure people are well

looked after, that nobody is better off living on benefits than they

would be if they were going out to work. This is about social

engineering and we have to be very clear about that. We have to leave

it there, thank you all very much. If you would like to have your say

about that debate you can log on to our website and you will find links

to continue the conversation online. We are also debating live from the

King Edward VI school in Southampton, should a future

monarch cease to be Supreme governor of the Church of England?

And should we expand grammar school education. Tell us what you think

about those topics or send us your ideas for future debates or

comments you would like to make about the programme.

If Catherine of Aragan had born Henry VIII a surviving son there

would probably never have had a Church of England with a monarch at

its head and if the Stuarts hadn't had a predilection for Catholicism

parliament wouldn't have ruled that English monarchs had to be one of

Protestant faith. Should a future monarch cease to be the Supreme

governor of the Church of England. Bishop Jonathan, good morning, how

are you! Nice to see you. Make the case that in the 21st century

multicultural Britain the monarch should be the Supreme governor of

effectively the state sponsored religion? Well, you have to know a

little bit about what the Church of England's vision is. And that's to

be present in every community, to be the Church for all in every

situation. We have talked about those in poverty, those on the edge

of society. But those who make difficult decisions for us in

business, and commerce. The Church of England's vision is to be the

Church serving the nation. It's not so much privilege, but a

responsibility that we take really seriously. I think people caught a

little bit of that seeing Rev, in the second series, the really

attractive figure of the parish priest who is struggling in prayer,

trying to build community wherever he can find it, challenging those,

speaking truth to power. It seems to me if that's something like the

vision of the Church of England rooted in prayer, community,

service of others, reminding the whole nation actually we are there

for those who are not our members, if I can just press on, if that's...

You can do all that, why do you need the Queen or King? The monarch

in her life... Or his life. Knowing where we are now, she embodies that

principle of prayerfulness, of care and service of others and of duty.

At a time when our society is threatened with fragmentation I am

always looking for an integrating focus. I think the monarch, as the

Supreme Governor of a Church that is established... Why does the

monarch need to be religious? is a complex constitutional issue.

A simple question. I would say if we are prayerful and open and ready

to serve, and this is a vital element of being a monarch,

particularly in our nation, which has such deep roots in the

Christian tradition. Speaking truth on to power, that's what you should

support this, being a Christian, because it puts faith at the very

centre of the constitution and of national life, but you don't.

don't. Faith should be at the centre of politics, Christians

should be at the centre of politics, that's different I think to being

at the centre of power, because as Christians we need to be prepared,

as you say, Jonathan, to speak truth to power. It's hard to do

that from a position of privilege. As a Christian I would want to say

why if our loyalty is to God, to the holy spirit f we recognise

Christ as our King, Lord, why are we exalting a human being in this

way? Why indeed in the 21st century are we suggesting that an unelected

monarch on a basis of an accident of birth should be the head of

state? Do we not trust ourselves as a people enough to run ourselves,

rather than rely on this... On the people we elect, we probably

shouldn't trust ourselves. We will do Republicanism another day, we

have done it before. This is a multicultural society. It's a

mistake for it to be a multicultural society and it's bad

for everybody that it's become multicultural because it's becoming

a place where nobody belongs... The fact that this is a society founded

upon the principles of the sermon on the mount of the ten

commandments... You keep interrupting, that's another thing

you out not to do if you are that Christian. I will I will wait until

you finish. Society founded upon the principles of the sermon of the

mount and ten commandments makes it what it is and one of the reasons

why so many people from other countries have come here to

preferences in places where they first came from because of its

enormously civilised aspect, because it possesses that wonderful

thing freedom under the law, which is so rare on the surface of the

planet which derives from that religion. It's absolutely right

that the Christian religion should be at the heart of our Government.

One particular type of Christian religion. It's actually the

brilliant thing about Anglicanism it's fantastically inclusive. Don't

laugh. It's very, very important. It's a broad Church. Absolutely

right. It doesn't turn anybody away. Why C of E and why trust the

monarch to be this ideal? A Catholic priest, you see doing

exactly what you say in another programme. Any King or Queen can't

fulfil that function that is performed by a parish priest,

because she has her own duties and her humanness. It needs to be

unpicked about, to be Supreme Governor, does not in fact mean to

be the supreme authority in the Church of England. It's a

figurehead. A person you are describing that doesn't exist in

our future monarch, perhaps. would hope that it does. I would

hope it does for the common good and because I believe that the

Christian ethic and vision she embodies is vital at a time when we

are turning towards individualism and we are exploring how a vision

of consumerism is perhaps not all it was set out to be. What about

Catholicism, how about that? last in the 21st century we now

have the situation where if the heir will be male or female, that's

got to be a good thing. It is a good thing. I am not convinced,

when you find yourself in possession, few people are lucky

enough to be, something very old and very beautiful which works you

should be very careful about messing around with it. If you

start knocking down walls and changing things you will often find

the whole thing falls down, be careful. Why spit on your luck, if

you have something that works so It works. I'm a fan of Christianity.

I wish Christians would follow it more, perhaps. What we do have to

recognise though is, this is 2012. We are living in a modern society,

with lots of different faiths and cultures and creed. People also of

no faith. The difficulty we have, it's a huge difficulty, is this.

Firstly, I don't believe anybody should be above the law. Nobody

should be above the law. There should not be a religious

requirement for you to be able to take a position that actually a Jew,

a Christian, Buddhist, a Muslim should be able to do. Skrientolgs,

whatever? Whatever. Imagine a Mormon being Head of State. We are

a long time away from the glorious revolution. Freedom of faith for

the monarch. An interesting point? The trouble is we are touching

towards turning it into a heritage industry debate. The monarch is the

Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Mohammed will not be

applying for the Chief Rabbis job. Why shouldn't an Anglican be the

Supreme Governor of the Church of England? Not least because that is

good for the Church of England because, as the bishop said, it

keeps it open, outward looking caring for a lot of place, in which

Catholic priests don't do. What if the monarch does not want to be an

Anglican? If the monarch doesn't want to be an Anglican that is a

constitutional crisis. Which is a separate conversation. If you want

to open up the Head of State to all that comes... If Diana was alive

today and she had married Dodi Fayed, William's step faith weir

have been a Muslim. If he had converted to Islam he is unable to

be the Head of the State. We cannot have a situation in this day and

age, the Islamic position is there is no compulsion in religion and

belief. That I think is a good template for Muslims and non-

Muslims to abide by. The monarch should have freedom of choice of

faith. In Saudi Arabia - This isn't Saudi Arabia. This is Southampton.

It's important one should recognise in Saudi Arabia Christianity is

effectively illegal. Christians can't even go to Mecca. Islam

saying there is no compulsion in religion. It's illegal to leave

Islam under Sharia law and it should result in the penalty of

death. You have a - I'm not going to let that stand. You have a very

- Which would be worse, if the Queen or the King is a Roman

Catholic or atheist, which would be the worse scenario for you? I would

not want the King or Queen of England to be an atheist. It's the

Christian religion and the law which stands upon it. The law does

stand upon religion that makes the King, King and the Queen Queen.

Make a point. I'm an Anglican I love multi-cultural Britain.

APPLAUSE I think in 100 years time it makes

no sense at all to have the Queen as an Anglican, Head of the Church.

But I don't see why, now is the time to change. I think the real

advantage of changing... We are talking about the future, not now.

We are talking about the next Queen, the next monarch. I wouldn't want

to change that for the next monarch. The only point of changing is if it

reduces tensions to change. Now, I believe what is missing is that the

different cultures within Britain, especially our Church of England,

Angelaism, are not making their cases strongly enough. I think they

hide behind... That is an interesting point. It could be

liberating, couldn't it, Bishop Jonathan, for the Church of England

if you were taken out of the equation. You could be more

definite. You could be... More fire in your belly. More people watching

this programme right now than will attend a Church of England service

today? I don't know what your viewing figures are. Watching

something is very different from being there. We are not asking the

Queen to be the next DG are we? Issues are mixed up here. 900,000

people will ataend Church of England service today. It's vital

to say that I disagree with Christopher Hitchens on multi-

culturalism. I think diversity brings richness and I believe that

the Anglican community and the nation is one of those hidden tress

uers. We work under the radar, quietly present in every community.

I would be very reluctant to see that whole vision, the church for

the nation, not the church in a privileged position, but the

church... It could be a vibrant successful growing church.

Church of England of remarkable people in it doing great work. Some

people are pushing adges. The Catholic Church, juicish

communities and lots of others are doing great work. There is a

difference between an organisation doing great work across the country

and one having a privileged position. As Christians, Peter

talks about the Sermon on the Mount, he didn't... What do you speak?

bishops can sit in the House of Lords and vote on legislation. I

may agree with their votes on the Welfare Reform Bill, I still...

What would you like to say? support the Church of England's

right to elect its own Supreme Leader, can you choose whoever they

want if they want to be your leader. The reason we have a problem here

is because of the Church of England and the state institutions. That is

what we into need to unpick and look at why the Church of England

historically has had a privileged position in institutions of state.

Society has moved on. There are lots of other religions and people

of different faiths and no faith that need to be represented equally.

Successive governments have repeatedly sought to increase the

representation of other religions in the House of Lords. They are so.

They don't have a set number of automatically elected bishops.

is a fair point. Anybody who lives anywhere in England has a right to

the ministry of England. They have the right to be bap advertised,

married there. They may not want it. Maybe they don't. The monarch does

not have the right to choose choose their faith. Who will crown the

next monarch. At the Coronation the monarch stake takes an oath of

allegiance to God, under God and crowned by the Archbishop of

Canterbury. If we say they can have any faith at all, under what

authority are they there? How have they the right to speak in anyway.

What about the defender of all faiths that Prince Charles put

forth? I would like to say that religion politics. Like the bishop

should talk about the politics for the welfare of the public. The same

as Islam (inaudible) we should go on that basis. Like Islam. It was

the help of the Jews, Christians. They knead one state. The

constitution of Madena. We should put humanity first and monarchy

should be abolished. Humanity should be put forward. That is a

republican question. The point is the Church of England is there for

everyone and you have the right to their ministry as much as anyone

else. Actually, because we are there for everyone, we are more

engaged with whole communities. We are supporting in all sorts of ways

that other churches can choose to do if they want, but we are not a

holy club for the like minded, we are there for everyone. I wish it

was. Can you go to Anglican Churchs where they will be open and

inclusive and they will welcome you in. You go to other Angela ka can

churches if you are gay or bisexual they will say you can't be like

that and follow God. And another church, if you have a wheelchair

you there won't be a ramp to get. In if we were living up to sermon

on the mount, as Peter suggested, sorry I interrupted you was Britain

a Christian country when it was involved in the slave trade? He has

to come clean he is an anarchist Christian with suspicions of the

state. The facts on the ground is that the Church of England is the

larger provider of youth services in the country. We need to take

that seriously as a source of social capital even before you do

God. The Queen gives this power. There should be a diamond dividend

of volunteering instead of a new yacht. Thank you very much. If you

have views about our debate long on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions.

Follow the links to where you can continue the discussion online. Or

send us your views about our last big question. Should we exstand

grammar school education? If you would like to be in the audience

you can e-mail us at: We are in Oxford next week, Cambridge on

February 19th and Cardiff the week after that. Academy schools are

able to select for aptitude in music, drama, sport and technology,

almost anything, but academic potential. That was phased out

along with the grammar schools in the '60s and '70s. Those few

remaining counties that retained grammar schools are being allowed

to increase their intake. Should we exstand grammar school education?

You think we should not. It's interesting the way that social

mobility dshes since they were faced out how social mobility

declined. Look at the people at the top of society, so many come from

private schools? Absolutely not true. This idea that the grammar

school provided social mobility is a myth. Is it? We are socially

mobile society now than we ever where during the days of the dram

ar school. The Foreign Secretary went to a comprehensive school.

Robert Peston the Financial adviser for the BBC went to a comprehensive

school. 60% of people now going to Oxford went to state schools. This

is twice, more than twice as many went when we had the grm ar schools.

The grammar schools actually destroyed education for about 90%

of the population. Only 25% of people went to grammar school. The

other 75 went to secondary mod erns. They were allowed to leave at 15

can no qualifications. They left with nothing. Those 25% in most

areas that went to grammar schools, 10% succeeded because the other 15%

were put in the B stream, C stream and were given a deep sense of

failure. The comprehensive system works. It works better than grammar

schools ever did. It wasn't the great key to the secret of social

mobility, it's a myth? Opposite. No brainer actually. Is it? Good

schools, grammar schools turn out better results. Better results

equal mobility. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that people

going to grammar schools actually don't include a very significant

proportion, 13% of people on free school meals. What we cannot afford

now. The tired old arguments I heard, they depress me immensely,

what we can't afford is not getting the very top qualifications so we

can can compete in the world market with China and the rest of them.

Now, one statistic, I will leave it it at that. Which is deadly. I

never heard anyone answer this one and therefore I have never heard

them refute the grounds. There are only 164 grammar schools left in

this country. There are nearly 3,000 comprehensives. The 164

grammar schools in 2006 produced over half the A* and top A-levels

in the top subjects which are going to get us somewhere in the world.

Over half, 3,000 comprehensives If you are going to cream off

people at the age of 11 that you assume are going to be the

cleverest, then obviously you should be able to get good

results... Don't have any grammar schools at all, there is no

creaming or selection. 3,000 comprehensives have the whole

ability range in them, why can't they equal 164 grammar schools? O.

Because they are not... They're not genuine in the same areas of

grammar school, if you have already creamed off what you consider to

be? How can you cream off from a grammar school within 100 miles of

you? By using the 11-Plus and what happens then... You are missing the

point. They're not there. The only 32LEAs with any selection in them.

You expect grammar schools to do better, of course, because they're

not mixed ability. They're not working with mixed ability. What

about kids in 3,000 comprehensives? They're not getting it. What about

children who are 80% who are jettison. The secondary modern

schools perform extremely well. For example, on average, the secondary

modern schools in this country are actually producing better results,

for example, in the comprehensives in Bristol and there is no creaming

in Bristol at all. People subjected to an 11-Plus exam from a deep

sense of failure. There are lots of people out there who spent their

lives getting over the fact they were told they were a failure at a

young age. Do they have a deep sense of failure, if someone has

they will behave like a failure? Lots of people have a deep tpepbs

sense of failure, including many thousands of children who after 11

years of state education in this country emerge and find nobody will

employ them because their education has been so bad, because people -

hang on, you have had a long say, because people like you destroyed

the only access to good education which the non-rich people in this

country have. You talked about selection, there is there is

selection in this country in state education, it's selection by money.

If you can afford to live in the catchment area of the better

comprehensive, if you can afford to live in the right postcode you can

get selection, but if your children happen to be academically bright

and you can't they don't. They will do very well. Middle-class children

with... They will not. They do very well even in very difficult schools

in the area. Less well - they do a good deal less well. We have more

young people now wanting to go to university... You interrupt me so

much I suspect you don't want it to be heard, I don't blame you.

don't mind. Because it is actually overwhelming and people like you

who actually believe in good education for the poor should be on

my side, because it is exactly your campaign which has destroyed access

to good education for the poor people in this country and you

should be ashamed of it. gentleman back there, good morning.

I think grammar schools themselves aren't exactly a bad thing but we

looking at the wrong end of the argument. My friend here, he went

to a grammar school, I went to a very bad state comprehensive.

Caroline can justify that, shoo is my MP and when I left it was a 30%

pass rate. Very bad teachers, my teacher now, the other day she was

in the Daily Echo because she was a trouble shooter head teacher and

she is now head teacher of the worst school in England. Anyway,

basically I think when you say about grammar schools offer these

children these grades and that grades and offer opportunities, I

agree to some point but I think a lot of it comes down to the

individual and the ethics instilled in them. Culturism capital

capitalalism. The fact is you can put a child in any school I think

and my flatmate who lived in the same room as me at university, you

he went to Royal grammar school in Guildford, his dad was a

millionaire and he got worst grades than me. I had no help. I had to do

it myself and I think a lot of success in life you will not have a

lot of that extra help in grammar schools, praoeuf schools. It --

private schools. It doesn't matter, if you want to succeed, you will

succeed, doesn't matter where you go. Is that true? The argument is

there is a better - a child that does not have that culture capital

at home but is clever will have a better chance in life if they go to

grammar school and experience something now them, which is a kind

of this is what people argue, the love of learning and so forth?

haven't got the missionary zeal against grammar schools as my

colleague here has, but I think that they were of a time and that

time is no longer. Actually we need to address other things, just

expanding the opportunity of existing grammar schools to allow

more children in I don't think it's going to necessarily do much but I

would be against trying to bring back the grammar school system. We

never really did crack... Where is the logic? Those were built in a

time where 20% of people we wanted to funnel, the best brains, to go

to university. Now 50% of people are going to university. Not to the

best universities. Oxbridge, the vast majority come from five

schools, four of which are private, and the fifth is a 6th form

education college in Cambridge. issue is what are we preparing

children for. Until you get a credible alternative to university

for children of that age which we don't have in this country, you

will continue to funnel them into universities and they can't albeit

top. There isn't enough places for all the top. When you have 50% of

children going to universities they can't all go to the best ones.

Actually what you need to do is concentrate on how you get better

education and to say that you can select on music or on art or sport

actually isn't true. It's only 10% you are allowed. There is selection.

I don't think there is much... Selection on faith, as well. Yes,

faith you can go more than 10%. But I think the key issue here is

actually what are we doing across education and going back, as nice

as it would be, to days when council estates were full of the

deserving poor, and 20% went to grammar school is not very helpful.

I also think that we have proven time and again the argument that

you can pick people at 11 and that's their destiny, actually is

pretty false, it doesn't work. Roger. Sitting next to an excellent

Conservative MP for a area, her party says we all think grammar

schools are wonderful but you can't have any more of them F that makes

any sense, I can't think of anything excellent in society we

don't want more of and the other two parties would love to destroy

them. The truth is grammar schools perform in a high level. They

perform for the people who have the ability to go to, no one is

suggesting we go back to the old system, everyone goes in at the 11-

Plus. We are suggesting grammar schools should be there and those

whose parents who want to put kids in have that opportunity. That is

moving on, that's modern. The alternative is totalitarian, it's

to say there will only be comprehensive schools because if

you take your kid out of that we say it no longer is comprehensive,

so you can't have the school you want. That's Marxism, frankly. We

want diversity anagramer schools are part -- and grammar schools are

part of it. My wife would kill me if I didn't at least highlight and

advocate the education system recognised in the world as being

one of the best systems of education, now you can argue about

the population size, you can argue about taxation... You can argue

about culture. The evidence on that. Hold on. It's a complex argument,

because I am arguing as an ex- grammar schoolboy, not in this neck

of the woods, Hertfordshire nonetheless, I loved and benefited

massively from my grammar school education. I am a big fan of

grammar schools. I think grammar schools should be allowed to exist

within a mixed educational system. I think in this country it does

work actually t does work within a certain framework. However, we have

to look at the kind of selection that goes in grammar school and I

don't want to be a one-trick pony but within grammar schools we had a

system where certain boys were sifted off for fast-tracking

towards Oxbridge and even though we had ethnic minority students there

who were fantastically capable, not me, obviously others, but capable

but for some reason they weren't selected for the fast-tracking and

a chamber choir was all white. you want to be in the choir?

Tpheufs the chair. -- I was in the choir. Didn't last very long.

are off the subject here. I want to something which was said earlier,

in the late 1960s according to the Franks report, more than 60% of

undergraduates came from state schools. It dived after, and it's

begown climb again thanks to extraordinary social measures and

concessions and rules rules forcing Oxford to take them. In the days of

grammar schools they got in there in their own right because they

were educated and state school pupils and you destroyed that. The

other point that needs to be made, the argument is against grammar

schools don't actually argue because they know they were good,

they say the secondary moderns were bad. I am not going to argue

whether they were bad or not, in many cases they were a good deal

better than the comprehensives which replaced them. If something

is wrong with the system you fix the bit that's wrong. You don't

destroy the bit that's working and you destroyed the part that was

working and saddled everyone with something that wasn't working. We

fixed the bit that was wrong by bringing in comprehensive schools

because 75% who went to secondary moderns... The Labour manifesto of

1964 which launched this whole thing promised grammar school

education for everyone. Now truly and honestly do you think that's

what we got? Yes, I most certainly do. You must be completely and

utterly deluded. I am not. Let's bring Francis in. I taught for

years and the education those kids are getting is just as good as any

I got. Francis, what is going wrong? What is going wrong we are

going from centralised plans and it seems people in London have a

particular set of educational challenges and want to impose their

concerns on the rest of the country. If kids in Thanet or the Valley

Want a platform to get out of poverty through a grammar school

fantastic but next to that let Eton have funded places, let initiatives

like coop schools come in, so in a particular patch local decision-

makers can transform the conversation, not some bland group

of folks sending messages down from London saying it's all like our bit

of London where we are worrying about access. You, Sir. We are

talking about one specific education situation, which is

grammar schools but we already said we live in a multicultural world.

Surely we should adopt all forms of education which are suitable for

all types of people. I went to a grammar school and I failed. I

couldn't do it because I wasn't educationally able to cope. I also

know people who went to secondary modern who also failed because they

didn't get the education they required and would have probably

better in my place. We ought to be talking about increasing education

across the board and putting the right money in that actually makes

the difference. What about the children who will go through life

knowing they didn't get to the grammar school? Well, how does one

tackle failure everywhere and does one expect a uniform level of

success they undertake? Life is absolutely full of selection. I

didn't end up on this programme by by being pulled in off the street.

I am not advocating the old system, I am advocating if you want to go

to a particular institution, whatever it may be, you meet their

criteria to get in. You get in. It's an early age. And you were an

Ofsted inspector, I mean, not everyone can be an inspector, but

not everyone can be an MP. Well, maybe. But it's an awfully early

age at which to have that sword of Damacles. It's correctable, you can

have a go at grammar school at 11, you may not actually be ready. It

doesn't mean to say if you are at 13, you should have been let in at

11. Of course at 13 you can get in, at 16 you can transfer. A quick

point. The selection house prices, streaming in schools, the lot,

let's work with a broad platform... Select by ability, not by money.

Don't select by money. Those taking the 11-Plus now have all been

tutored. You can't pass 11-Plus without a private tutor and you are

tutored for two years before you take the exam. Poor families can't

afford to have private tutors. Therefore, the number of poor

people who go to grammar school is very few. They're all privately

tutored. The tiny survival of a few grammar schools, if we had grammar

schools all over the country that wouldn't be the case but you are

against that. We have to leave it there. Thank you all very much for